On 13 September 2018 at 20:41, Jason Merrill <ja...@redhat.com> wrote: >> Okay. Do you think we should have an sfk_kind for non-canonical >> copy/move operations? That would presumably make it a tad more >> straightforward to go from >> fndecl to whatever class bits, instead of what's currently there, where we >> say "yeah I had a fndecl, >> now I turned it into an sfk_kind that says it's a copy constructor, but >> guess which one when you're >> deeming its triviality". ;) > > I suppose it would be possible to have a more detailed sfk_kind for > distinguishing between different signatures, but I'm inclined instead > to stop using sfk_kind in trivial_fn_p. Even if having an enumeration > is convenient for dispatch (or bitmapping), it doesn't need to be the > same enum.
Yeah, the idea of using a different enum dawned on me straight after sending that email. ;) I'll give this approach a spin, more bits into the lang_type and a different mapping, that way we should indeed get correct answers for all cases.
