EricWF added inline comments.
================
Comment at: include/memory:1349
is_same<
- decltype(__has_construct_test(declval<_Alloc>(),
- declval<_Pointer>(),
- declval<_Args>()...)),
+ decltype(_VSTD::__has_construct_test(declval<_Alloc>(),
+ declval<_Pointer>(),
----------------
Quuxplusone wrote:
> EricWF wrote:
> > Wouldn't the `declval` calls also need qualification?
> (Sorry I'm jumping in before I know the full backstory here.) I would expect
> that the "declval" call doesn't need qualification because its argument-list
> is empty. ADL doesn't apply to template arguments AFAIK.
> (Test case proving it to myself:
> https://wandbox.org/permlink/i0YarAfjOYKOhLFP )
>
> Now, IMHO, `__has_construct_test` also doesn't need guarding against ADL,
> because it contains a double underscore and is thus firmly in the library's
> namespace. If the user has declared an ADL-findable entity
> `my::__has_construct_test`, they're already in undefined behavior land and
> you don't need to uglify libc++'s code just to coddle such users.
>
> And, IMO, to the extent that ADL *does* work on the old code here, that's a
> feature, not a bug. As the implementor of some weird fancy pointer or
> iterator type, I might *like* having the power to hook into libc++'s
> customization points here. Of course I wouldn't try to hook into
> `__has_construct_test`, but `__to_raw_pointer` feels more likely. (At my
> current low level of understanding, that is.)
> If the user has declared an ADL-findable entity my::__has_construct_test,
> they're already in undefined behavior land
The problem isn't that it will find a `my::__has_construct_test`, but that the
simple act of looking requires completed types, otherwise an error is
generated. [Example](https://wandbox.org/permlink/KAgGXkGSjXTETKKw)
https://reviews.llvm.org/D37538
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
