[PATCH] D142578: [Clang][Doc] Edit the Clang release notes

royjacobson closed this revision. royjacobson added a comment. Landed in https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/commit/be701ab08f12daf9437c2db6d08a1731cf1df34c Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D142578/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D14257

[PATCH] D143851: [clang-tidy] Tweak 'rule of 3/5' checks to allow defaulting a destructor outside the class.

royjacobson added a comment. In D143851#4126453 , @ClockMan wrote: > Thing is that same issue may happen with all other members, what about > copy/move constructors defaulted in .cpp (just to speed up compilation for > classes with many members). > Best

[PATCH] D143891: [Clang] Adjust triviality computation in QualType::isTrivialType to C++20 cases.

royjacobson added a comment. It's an interesting discussion, I just want to remind that this change is for triviality rules from P0848 (conditionally trivial member functions) which is only going to ship in Clang 16 anyway. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION htt

[PATCH] D144572: [C++20] Stop claiming full support for consteval (for the moment!)

royjacobson accepted this revision. royjacobson added a comment. This revision is now accepted and ready to land. +1 from me, at least as long as we don't define the feature test macro. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D144572/new/ http

[PATCH] D143891: [Clang] Adjust triviality computation in QualType::isTrivialType to C++20 cases.

This revision was automatically updated to reflect the committed changes. Closed by commit rG000ec50ef511: [Clang] Adjust triviality computation in QualType::isTrivialType to C++20 cases. (authored by royjacobson). Changed prior to commit: https://reviews.llvm.org/D143891?vs=496884&id=499635#to

[PATCH] D144572: [C++20] Stop claiming full support for consteval (for the moment!)

royjacobson added a comment. In D144572#4145614 , @cor3ntin wrote: > @aaron.ballman is the plan to backport that to clang 16? I think it probably > should. > We ought to try to improve the situation for clang 17 cxx_status.html is always updated from tr

[PATCH] D149961: [Sema] Mark ineligibility of special member functions correctly

royjacobson created this revision. royjacobson added reviewers: shafik, erichkeane. Herald added a project: All. royjacobson requested review of this revision. Herald added a project: clang. Herald added a subscriber: cfe-commits. I checked if the member function declaration was a copy constructor

[PATCH] D149961: [Sema] Mark ineligibility of special member functions correctly

This revision was automatically updated to reflect the committed changes. Closed by commit rG0f59bee3d58f: [Sema] Mark ineligibility of special member functions correctly (authored by royjacobson). Changed prior to commit: https://reviews.llvm.org/D149961?vs=519857&id=523765#toc Repository:

[PATCH] D139038: [Clang] Don't consider default constructors ineligible if the more constrained constructor is a template

royjacobson created this revision. Herald added a project: All. royjacobson updated this revision to Diff 479935. royjacobson added a comment. royjacobson retitled this revision from "Draft fix for 59206" to "[Clang] Don't consider default constructors ineligible if the more constrained constructo

[PATCH] D139038: [Clang] Don't consider default constructors ineligible if the more constrained constructor is a template

This revision was landed with ongoing or failed builds. This revision was automatically updated to reflect the committed changes. Closed by commit rG7d58c95635cc: [Clang] Don't consider default constructors ineligible if the more constrained… (authored by royjacobson). Repository: rG LLVM Githu

[PATCH] D139586: [Clang][C++23] Lifetime extension in range-based for loops

royjacobson added a comment. Thanks for picking this up! :) The (non-wording) paper makes a pretty convincing case to just apply this retroactively to any C++11 code (https://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2022/p2644r1.pdf). I think we should apply this retroactively, maybe add a

[PATCH] D120255: [Concepts] Check constraints for explicit template instantiations

royjacobson updated this revision to Diff 412229. royjacobson edited the summary of this revision. royjacobson set the repository for this revision to rG LLVM Github Monorepo. royjacobson added a comment. Herald added projects: clang, All. Updated test so it checks actual instantiation and update

[PATCH] D120255: [Concepts] Check constraints for explicit template instantiations

royjacobson updated this revision to Diff 412252. royjacobson added a comment. Adding context. (Sorry - didn't realize you were speaking about the diff itself, thought you meant adding general context to the PR message...) Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https

[PATCH] D120255: [Concepts] Check constraints for explicit template instantiations

royjacobson added a comment. In D120255#3352755 , @erichkeane wrote: > Hmm... doing FileCheck in a Sema test is highly irregular. I would expect us > to be able to test this in the type system in some way. Something like > `A<3>::f()` is invalid (see

[PATCH] D120255: [Concepts] Check constraints for explicit template instantiations

royjacobson updated this revision to Diff 412262. royjacobson added a comment. Slightly update the test command line (add -triple %itanium_abi_triple like in other similar tests). Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D120255/new/ https://r

[PATCH] D120255: [Concepts] Check constraints for explicit template instantiations

royjacobson added inline comments. Comment at: clang/test/SemaTemplate/constraints-instantiation.cpp:3-8 +// void PR46029::A<1>::f() +// CHECK: define {{.*}} @_ZN7PR460291AILi1EE1fEv +// void PR46029::A<2>::f() +// CHECK: define {{.*}} @_ZN7PR460291AILi2EE1fEv +// void PR46029::A

[PATCH] D120255: [Concepts] Check constraints for explicit template instantiations

royjacobson updated this revision to Diff 412557. royjacobson added a comment. Thanks for the quick feedback :) I looked again at the AST and found out that there is a difference between instantiated and non-instantiated functions I missed - the instantiated functions have actual code AST. I ha

[PATCH] D120255: [Concepts] Check constraints for explicit template instantiations

royjacobson added a comment. In D120255#3357007 , @erichkeane wrote: > Do you have push rights, or do you need someone to push for you? If you need > someone to push for you, please post the name and email address you'd like > the commit under. Thank

<    1   2   3   4