erichkeane wrote: > > Is it more reasonable to have the bodies of the functions that matter start > > with a `static_assert` on the completeness of the type? > > That would basically be the other option: Add a `static_assert(sizeof(_Tp) >= > 0)` to every single function. That's much less ergonomic and significantly > more error-prone though (and also has worse diagnostic messages). We'll > probably do that if you don't want to take the attribute. For the library > it'd be much nicer not having to do that though.
Hmm.. I was thinking more of `static_assert(__is_complete_type(_Tp))` with a reasonable message. But I see that might be effectively a clang-only builtin type trait(as it is for embarcadero compat?!). https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/211231 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
