Am Sa., 15. Juni 2019 um 12:52 Uhr schrieb Daniel Krügler <daniel.krueg...@gmail.com>: > > Am Fr., 14. Juni 2019 um 16:05 Uhr schrieb Jonathan Wakely > <jwak...@redhat.com>: > > > > These types are not constructible by design, so we never want warnings > > for them, even with -Wsystem-headers. > > > > * include/experimental/type_traits (experimental::nonesuch): Use > > pragma to disable -Wctor-dtor-privacy warnings. > > * include/std/type_traits (__is_convertible_helper<From, To, false>) > > (__is_nt_convertible_helper<From, To, false>, __nonesuch): Likewise. > > > > Tested x86_64-linux, committed to trunk. > > Unless I'm misunderstanding something, __nonesuchbase (twice) would > not be affected by that warning, so maybe the start of the > corresponding warning suppression could be moved after their > definition? Or did you do it that way to keep __nonesuchbase and > nonesuch close together?
Jonathan is momentarily not able to respond to this list using proper email format, but he responded to me in private as follows: "I did do that to keep them together, rather than introducing white space between the base and the class using it. I even considered putting the pragmas around the whole file, but decided to add them just locally where needed. I don't mind moving the base struct out of the pragma if you or anybody else feels strongly, but thought it didn't do any harm this way." Personally I don't feel strongly about it - Thanks for the explanation! - Daniel
