On Mar 9, 2012, at 3:30 PM, Douglas Gregor wrote: > On Mar 7, 2012, at 6:55 PM, John McCall wrote: >> On Mar 7, 2012, at 6:39 PM, Douglas Gregor wrote: >>> On Mar 7, 2012, at 6:33 PM, John McCall wrote: >>>> On Feb 22, 2012, at 9:32 AM, Douglas Gregor wrote: >>>>> Author: dgregor >>>>> Date: Wed Feb 22 11:32:19 2012 >>>>> New Revision: 151170 >>>>> >>>>> URL: http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project?rev=151170&view=rev >>>>> Log: >>>>> Teach overload resolution to prefer user-defined conversion via a >>>>> lambda closure type's function pointer conversion over user-defined >>>>> conversion via a lambda closure type's block pointer conversion, >>>>> always. This is a preference for more-standard code (since blocks >>>>> are an extension) and a nod to efficiency, since function pointers >>>>> don't require any memory management. Fixes PR12063. >>>> >>>> Why does this have anything to do with Objective-C? >>>> Blocks are a C extension. >>> >>> The memory-management model for the conversion to block pointer is >>> retain+autorelease. Since we don't have an 'autorelease' equivalent in >>> C-with-blocks, we opted to omit the block pointer conversion rather than >>> invent another memory-management scheme. >>> >>> Yes, we could probably come up with another solution, but IMO the user base >>> for C++11-with-blocks-and-lambdas that isn't Objective-C++11 is too small >>> to bother inventing something now. >> >> Mmm, alright. Is this documented somewhere? > > r152446
Thanks! I guess by calling this an Objective-C extension, we're implicitly documenting that it's not available in C++-with-blocks. I think it's worth stating that explicitly, though. John. _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
