zoecarver added a comment. @rjmccall Thanks for all that information. You're right; thinking about it in the context of four value operations is helpful.
> Hmm. My first instinct is to say that a type that "adds new information" > about its special members — i.e. that explicitly declares its destructor or > copy/move constructors for some reason other than to immediately explicitly > default them — should always be treated conservatively in the absence of a > trivial_abi attribute. So a type that explicitly deletes all its copy/move > constructors should never be treated as destructively movable without the > attribute. A type with implicitly-deleted copy/move constructors due solely > to subobjects that are still destructively movable should still be > destructively movable, I think. Just to be clear, this is the opposite of what we were talking about earlier. Earlier I was suggesting that a type without the trival_abi attribute (such as `S1`), and without any move/copy constructors because of a subobject (`S0`) that had the attribute, should //not// be destructively movable. But, I see merit in both sides of the argument, so I'm happy to do it either way. So, if we're all in agreement, I'll update this patch so that `S1` is passed directly. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D92361/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D92361 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
