On Mar 10, 2012, at 11:48 AM, John McCall wrote:
> 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.
Seemed clear enough to me, but it's made explicit in r152511.
- Doug
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
