On Thu, Jan 19, 2017 at 8:45 AM, Malcolm Parsons
wrote:
> On 19 January 2017 at 13:16, Aaron Ballman wrote:
>> I wasn't thinking about that kind of odr-unuse when reviewing your
>> patch, so I am starting to think that perhaps it's not worth
>> distinguishing unevaluated contexts or not in the di
On 19 January 2017 at 13:16, Aaron Ballman wrote:
> I wasn't thinking about that kind of odr-unuse when reviewing your
> patch, so I am starting to think that perhaps it's not worth
> distinguishing unevaluated contexts or not in the diagnostic. :-( If
> we could do it, then great (we seem to be a
On Thu, Jan 19, 2017 at 7:49 AM, Aaron Ballman wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 19, 2017 at 4:37 AM, Malcolm Parsons
> wrote:
>> On 19 January 2017 at 03:47, Aaron Ballman wrote:
>>> It is not used in an unevaluated context -- that is a bug.
>>
>> It is an evaluated expression, but is it odr-used?
>>
>> C++
On 19 January 2017 at 12:49, Aaron Ballman wrote:
> You are correct, it is not an odr use. MSVC is wrong to require the capture.
Should the warning be rephrased?
--
Malcolm Parsons
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.l
On Thu, Jan 19, 2017 at 4:37 AM, Malcolm Parsons
wrote:
> On 19 January 2017 at 03:47, Aaron Ballman wrote:
>> It is not used in an unevaluated context -- that is a bug.
>
> It is an evaluated expression, but is it odr-used?
>
> C++14 [basic.def.odr] p3:
>
> A variable x whose name appears as a p
On 19 January 2017 at 03:47, Aaron Ballman wrote:
> It is not used in an unevaluated context -- that is a bug.
It is an evaluated expression, but is it odr-used?
C++14 [basic.def.odr] p3:
A variable x whose name appears as a potentially-evaluated expression
ex is odr-used by ex unless applying
On Jan 18, 2017 7:34 PM, "Akira Hatanaka via Phabricator" <
revi...@reviews.llvm.org> wrote:
ahatanak added a comment.
In https://reviews.llvm.org/D28467#649861, @krasin wrote:
> This change makes Clang hardly incompatible with MSVC++. Consider the
following program:
>
> #include
>
> int ma
