I'll update D3190 tomorrow and include Richard's test case.
- Stephan Richard Smith wrote:
On Wed, Mar 26, 2014 at 3:40 PM, Reid Kleckner <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: On Wed, Mar 26, 2014 at 3:10 PM, Richard Smith <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: On Wed, Mar 26, 2014 at 9:36 AM, Stephan Tolksdorf <[email protected] <mailto:[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
