shafik added inline comments.
================
Comment at: clang/include/clang/AST/DeclCXX.h:1269
/// Determine whether this class has a non-trivial copy constructor
/// (C++ [class.copy]p6, C++11 [class.copy]p12)
bool hasNonTrivialCopyConstructor() const {
----------------
philnik wrote:
> royjacobson wrote:
> > shafik wrote:
> > > These references looks like they need to be updated. Same below and it
> > > looks like `hasNonTrivialCopyConstructorForCall` is missing references
> > > all together.
> > TBH I don't think those functions actually need references to the standard?
> > Whether the actual member functions are trivial or not is already
> > calculated before. Do you think I can just remove it? :)
> I think it makes sense to call out that these functions represent something
> from the standard. There are other functions with similar names, which don't
> have an equivalent in the C++ standard, like `hasTrivialDestructorForCall`.
The point of having the reference is so folks can understand the logic behind
why someone choose to implement the functionality as they did.
I also prefer quoting the critical text since the paragraphs, sometimes the
stable name and wording can change and at least having text can allow us to
track which standard it came from and hopefully which change changed the text
and understand if it effects our compliance or not.
It can be a lot of work to figure this out from scratch if you don't know where
to look.
Repository:
rG LLVM Github Monorepo
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D154893/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D154893
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
