GorNishanov marked 11 inline comments as done.
GorNishanov added inline comments.
================
Comment at: include/experimental/coroutine:275
+ return *reinterpret_cast<_Promise*>(
+ __builtin_coro_promise(this->__handle_, __alignof(_Promise),
false));
+ }
----------------
CaseyCarter wrote:
> Is `this->non_static_member_of_non_dependent_base_class` idiomatic in libc++?
> I typically reserve `this->` for forcing lookup into dependent bases. (and on
> 217.)
I am keeping it consistent with other uses in the file.
================
Comment at: include/experimental/coroutine:288
+
+ coroutine_handle() {
+ this->__handle_ = __builtin_coro_noop();
----------------
CaseyCarter wrote:
> CaseyCarter wrote:
> > GorNishanov wrote:
> > > EricWF wrote:
> > > > Can `__builtin_coro_noop` produce a constant expression?
> > > No. llvm generates this value, so from clang perspective, it is not a
> > > constant.
> > > At llvm level it is a private per TU constant, so invocations of
> > > noop_coroutine() in different TUs linked into the same program will
> > > return you different values.
> > If this class type is not literal - since there's no `constexpr`
> > constructor - applying `constexpr` to the member functions on 278-283 is at
> > best misleading and at worst ill-formed NDR due to
> > http://eel.is/c++draft/dcl.constexpr#5.
> This constructor should be `_NOEXCEPT`, since it's invoked by
> `noop_coroutine` which is `_NOEXCEPT`.
Issue for Rapperswil? These constexprs were approved by LEWG/LWG in
Jacksonville 2018
https://reviews.llvm.org/D45121
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
