On Wed, Dec 12, 2018 at 09:17:01AM +0200, Ville Voutilainen wrote: > On Tue, 11 Dec 2018 at 20:58, Marek Polacek <pola...@redhat.com> wrote: > > > > On Thu, Sep 13, 2018 at 08:58:34PM +0300, Ville Voutilainen wrote: > > > 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. > > > > Hi Ville, any updates? > > No, and not any time soon. Do you by any chance want to pick this up? :)
Ok, this sounds interesting -- I'll give it a try. Marek
