On Wed, Mar 26, 2014 at 3:10 PM, Richard Smith <[email protected]>wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 26, 2014 at 9:36 AM, Stephan Tolksdorf <[email protected]>wrote: > >> Hi Reid, >> >> Did you overlook that I had assigned PR19253 to myself and posted a patch >> to this list (D3190)? :-) >> > Sorry, I was reading my inbox, not commit mail. This looked super obvious, so I went ahead. > I think that fixing HasIrrelevantDestructor (as I did in my patch) would >> be a better solution for this issue. > > > I agree that we should fix HasIrrelevantDestructor. But... we shouldn't > warn on a trivial destructor no matter whether it's public or whether it > calls non-public destructors. hasIrrelevantDestructor is supposed to just > be an optimization, and shouldn't affect our semantics. => We want both > fixes :) > > Another test case, should not warn (under either of the two 'global > destructor' warnings): > > class A { > friend struct B; > ~A() = default; > }; > struct B { > ~B() = default; > } b; > Is B supposed to inherit from A here?
_______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
