On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 9:40 PM, Ryan Molden <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> Please rebase the patch against the latest trunk -- in order to >> approximately match GCC, we now return false from the __has_trivial_* >> and __has_nothrow_* builtins if the class has both a trivial such >> special member and a nontrivial one. >> >> Ultimately, I wonder if we should just ignore GCC's specification for >> how these builtins should work, and instead implement the semantics of >> the corresponding C++11 type traits here. It's actually not possible >> to implement the traits correctly from the defined semantics of the >> traits which libstdc++ and MSVC's STL use. >> > > Attached is a patch against trunk, I believe I picked up / merged your > recent changes properly, let me know if I mucked it up or misunderstood you > (I just merged your changes I didn't augment the code I had in there from > before your changes). > I am all for matching the standard regardless of what GCC/MSVC decide(d) > to do here, I assume if they are non-standard at the moment they will soon > get in line. > > Earlier (last week?) I sent a mail about seeing some build issues with > macho_dump.I don't believe they are caused by my changes, clang still > builds and the tests still pass, but it is unclear what the failures mean > or how to investigate them, which is why I hadn't yet sent the patch. > > Ryan > Anything else I need to do here? I haven't seen a check-in mail, then again there have been hundreds of mails so perhaps I missed it, or there is some formal process to go through to request submission? Ryan
_______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
