mizvekov wrote: > Hmm. The best solution there is probably to use a consistent representation > but introduce some sort of `GLValueThatTheStandardAbsurdlyPretendsIsAnRValue` > (definitely the only and best word for this, ship it) that we can use as the > value category. IIRC, something similar happens in C where the standard > pretends that function l-values don't exist.
IIRC GCC also implements a similar value category as an alternative to the two-phase lookup rules for implicit moves, pre-C++23. This is almost an XValue, except it binds to LValue references as well. https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/85541 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
