This is the mail archive of the gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org mailing list for the GCC project.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: [C++ PATCH] PR c++/87051


On Wed, Dec 12, 2018 at 09:17:01AM +0200, Ville Voutilainen wrote:
> On Tue, 11 Dec 2018 at 20:58, Marek Polacek <polacek@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 <jason@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


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]