I'm fine with saying that the destructor is non-trivial when it's deleted like this; it just seemed inconsistent with your statement that we could make Sema declare a trivial destructor but it would be wasteful. Certainly I don't think we want hasTrivialDestructor and getDestructor()->isTrivial() to return different things.
If we're going to leave hasTrivialDestructor returning false, then I agree that the best fix is to repeat the logic from Sema that completely skips the field. REPOSITORY rL LLVM http://reviews.llvm.org/D10508 EMAIL PREFERENCES http://reviews.llvm.org/settings/panel/emailpreferences/ _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
