mizvekov added a comment.
In D104500#2827629 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D104500#2827629>, @lebedev.ri
wrote:
> Patch is missing description
Yes sorry for the noise, I do that sometimes just to let the bots test my patch
before it is fully ready for review.
If you have any tips for me so I can upload a diff and have it tested, without
having to create the DR for it, would appreciate.
================
Comment at: clang/test/CXX/class/class.init/class.copy.elision/p3.cpp:58-60
A1 test1(A1 &&a) {
- return a; // cxx11_17-error {{call to deleted constructor of
'test_implicitly_movable_rvalue_ref::A1'}}
+ return a;
}
----------------
Quuxplusone wrote:
> Personally, I don't think the world will accept applying P0527
> unconditionally in pre-C++20 modes. But I guess we'll find out. :P
Indeed :)
By the way, I have not found a counter example of strict C++98 code (not using
extensions) breaking with implicit moves enabled.
So it looks like we can have one mode for everything here.
Repository:
rG LLVM Github Monorepo
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D104500/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D104500
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
