[llvm-commits] [llvm] r164813 - /llvm/trunk/include/llvm/Operator.h

[Craig Topper]

I didn't have any problems. Maybe it worked because the constructor was
also deleted so there was no vtable created?

On Wed, Oct 3, 2012 at 9:35 AM, David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> wrote:

> Looks like it's probably invalid - my simple tests show Clang failing
> to link a simple program that does this. Did you not have that problem
> when building these changes with Clang?
>
> On Wed, Oct 3, 2012 at 9:14 AM, Craig Topper <craig.topper at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > I couldn't find anything in the standard either so I don't know.
> >
> >
> > On Wed, Oct 3, 2012 at 12:38 AM, David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >>
> >> On Fri, Sep 28, 2012 at 12:17 AM, Craig Topper <craig.topper at gmail.com>
> >> wrote:
> >> > Author: ctopper
> >> > Date: Fri Sep 28 02:17:01 2012
> >> > New Revision: 164813
> >> >
> >> > URL: http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project?rev=164813&view=rev
> >> > Log:
> >> > Remove a LLVM_DELETED_FUNCTION from destructor to fix -std=c++11 build
> >> > on gcc 4.7.
> >> >
> >> > Modified:
> >> >     llvm/trunk/include/llvm/Operator.h
> >> >
> >> > Modified: llvm/trunk/include/llvm/Operator.h
> >> > URL:
> >> >
> http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project/llvm/trunk/include/llvm/Operator.h?rev=164813&r1=164812&r2=164813&view=diff
> >> >
> >> >
> ==============================================================================
> >> > --- llvm/trunk/include/llvm/Operator.h (original)
> >> > +++ llvm/trunk/include/llvm/Operator.h Fri Sep 28 02:17:01 2012
> >> > @@ -35,7 +35,9 @@
> >> >    void *operator new(size_t, unsigned) LLVM_DELETED_FUNCTION;
> >> >    void *operator new(size_t s) LLVM_DELETED_FUNCTION;
> >> >    Operator() LLVM_DELETED_FUNCTION;
> >> > -  ~Operator() LLVM_DELETED_FUNCTION;
> >> > +  // NOTE: cannot use LLVM_DELETED_FUNCTION because gcc errors when
> >> > deleting
> >> > +  // an override of a non-deleted function.
> >>
> >> Any idea if this is standard or a GCC bug/feature? I can't find any
> >> wording in the standard for this, but it might be a defect under
> >> discussion, though I don't see anything at a quick glance.
> >>
> >> > +  ~Operator();
> >> >
> >> >  public:
> >> >    /// getOpcode - Return the opcode for this Instruction or
> >> > ConstantExpr.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > _______________________________________________
> >> > llvm-commits mailing list
> >> > llvm-commits at cs.uiuc.edu
> >> > http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvm-commits
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > ~Craig
>



-- 
~Craig
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-commits/attachments/20121003/295b2186/attachment.html>