[cfe-dev] intrinsics documentation?

[Sebastian Redl]

On 07.10.2010 20:43, Howard Hinnant wrote:
> Here's a list of intrinsics that I wish were documented but aren't.  I'd document them myself, but it would be too easy for me to make incorrect assumptions about corner cases.
>
> __is_union
> __is_class
> __is_enum
> __has_trivial_constructor
> __has_nothrow_constructor
> __has_trivial_copy
> __has_nothrow_copy
> __has_trivial_assign
> __has_nothrow_assign
> __has_trivial_destructor
> __has_virtual_destructor
> __is_pod
> __is_convertible_to
> __is_base_of
>
> And perhaps I've missed some, I'm not sure.  For example I'd love to also see:
>
> __underlying_type
> __is_trivial
> __is_trivially_copyable
> __is_standard_layout
> __is_literal_type
> __is_nothrow_constructible
> __is_trivially_constructible
> __is_nothrow_assignable
> __is_trivially_assignable
> __is_destructible
> __is_nothrow_destructible
> __is_trivally_destructible
>    
The intention of all type trait intrinsics is to directly implement the 
corresponding standard library type trait. Any divergence is a bug in 
our implementation. Do any of these traits not have a corresponding type 
trait? If so, then another consideration is whether we actually want 
that intrinsic.

Sebastian