On Wed, Mar 26, 2014 at 3:40 PM, Reid Kleckner <[email protected]> wrote:
> 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? > It was supposed to, yes :)
_______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
