<div dir="ltr">Btw, just checked gcc 6.2, and it has the same problem.<div><br></div><div><div>gcc version 6.2.0 20160901 (Ubuntu 6.2.0-3ubuntu11~14.04)<br></div></div><div><br></div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Sun, Jul 16, 2017 at 10:26 PM, Jakub (Kuba) Kuderski via llvm-commits <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:llvm-commits@lists.llvm.org" target="_blank">llvm-commits@lists.llvm.org</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr">I have a problem with adding a comment like that, because don't exactly know which gcc versions are affected. What's more, it also seems to expose a module-related clang bug (<a href="https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=33810" target="_blank">https://bugs.llvm.org/show_<wbr>bug.cgi?id=33810</a>).<br>Will generic comment mentioning that this a work around do? What's the best thing to mention in this case?<br><br>Best,<br>Kuba<br><br><br></div><div class="gmail_extra"><div><div class="h5"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Sun, Jul 16, 2017 at 10:01 PM, Davide Italiano <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:davide@freebsd.org" target="_blank">davide@freebsd.org</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><span>On Sun, Jul 16, 2017 at 10:01 AM, Jakub Kuderski via llvm-commits<br>
<<a href="mailto:llvm-commits@lists.llvm.org" target="_blank">llvm-commits@lists.llvm.org</a>> wrote:<br>
> Author: kuhar<br>
> Date: Sun Jul 16 10:01:40 2017<br>
> New Revision: 308140<br>
><br>
> URL: <a href="http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project?rev=308140&view=rev" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-pr<wbr>oject?rev=308140&view=rev</a><br>
> Log:<br>
> [Dominators] Workaround explicit instantiation bug.<br>
><br>
> Some platforms have problems with emmiting constructors when class<br>
> templates get explicitly instantiated.<br>
> This patch fixes the bug reported in D35315 by replacing `= default`<br>
> with an empty constructor body.<br>
><br>
> Modified:<br>
>     llvm/trunk/include/llvm/Suppo<wbr>rt/GenericDomTree.h<br>
><br>
> Modified: llvm/trunk/include/llvm/Suppor<wbr>t/GenericDomTree.h<br>
> URL: <a href="http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project/llvm/trunk/include/llvm/Support/GenericDomTree.h?rev=308140&r1=308139&r2=308140&view=diff" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-pr<wbr>oject/llvm/trunk/include/llvm/<wbr>Support/GenericDomTree.h?rev=<wbr>308140&r1=308139&r2=308140&<wbr>view=diff</a><br>
> ==============================<wbr>==============================<wbr>==================<br>
> --- llvm/trunk/include/llvm/Suppor<wbr>t/GenericDomTree.h (original)<br>
> +++ llvm/trunk/include/llvm/Suppor<wbr>t/GenericDomTree.h Sun Jul 16 10:01:40 2017<br>
> @@ -230,7 +230,7 @@ class DominatorTreeBase {<br>
>    using NodePtr = NodeT *;<br>
>    static constexpr bool IsPostDominator = IsPostDom;<br>
><br>
> -  DominatorTreeBase() = default;<br>
> +  DominatorTreeBase() {}<br>
><br>
<br>
</span>This is fine, but can you please add a comment explaining we're<br>
working around a GCC issue (so that when we drop GCC x.y.z we can<br>
remove this code or switch back to `= default`)?<br>
<br>
Thanks!<br>
<br>
--<br>
Davide<br>
</blockquote></div><br><br clear="all"><div><br></div></div></div><span class="HOEnZb"><font color="#888888">-- <br><div class="m_2384565294536203610gmail_signature" data-smartmail="gmail_signature"><div>Jakub Kuderski</div></div>
</font></span></div>
<br>______________________________<wbr>_________________<br>
llvm-commits mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:llvm-commits@lists.llvm.org">llvm-commits@lists.llvm.org</a><br>
<a href="http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-commits" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/<wbr>mailman/listinfo/llvm-commits</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div><br></div>