[PATCH] D84048: DR2303: Prefer 'nearer' base classes during template deduction.

Tue Jul 21 12:54:27 PDT 2020

erichkeane marked 2 inline comments as done.
erichkeane added a comment.

I'd attempted to regenerate the cxx_dr_status.html using make_cxx_dr_status, but I get a 'no such

In D84048#2165080 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D84048#2165080>, @rsmith wrote:

> In D84048#2164950 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D84048#2164950>, @erichkeane wrote:
>
> > Additionally, I sent out a CWG message on the reflector about this: https://godbolt.org/z/bEr61T
> >
> > My implementation has this as ambiguous, but the wording makes it well-formed I think.  I don't think that was the intent of CWG2303, so unless they confirm that this was their intent (or that I'm wrong), I'll leave this patch as is.
>
>
> Let's wait to hear back. Either option seems plausible here. The wording as written behaves the same way as name shadowing in member name lookup, so it may be intentional.

Agreed.  I think the pruning mechanism as implemented here is superior for a few reasons (and is easier to reason about mentally), but I want to see what CWG has to say.

FWIW, I though of the problem with this patch AFTER the fact (or at least, completely understood the wording at that point), so I wasn't aware of it when I wrote this patch.

================
Comment at: clang/test/CXX/drs/dr23xx.cpp:118
+#if __cplusplus >= 201103L
+namespace dr2303 {
+template <typename... T>
----------------
rsmith wrote:
> This should include a comment that `make_cxx_dr_status` can parse, such as `// dr2303: 11` to indicate support in Clang 11 onwards.
Our current clang-version is 12.0.0, so 12 is correct here, right?

I've not been able to get make_cxx_dr_status work unfortunately. It seems to generate a blank version of the file (well, it HAS html, but none of the content).

I used the cwg_index.html from here: http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/cwg_index.html

CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
  https://reviews.llvm.org/D84048/new/

https://reviews.llvm.org/D84048