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

[Craig Topper]

Should clang error on this like gcc?

On Wed, Oct 3, 2012 at 1:32 PM, David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Wed, Oct 3, 2012 at 12:05 PM, Eli Friedman <eli.friedman at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > On Wed, Oct 3, 2012 at 10:22 AM, David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >> Oh, I see, this is an intermediate abstract class? I didn't test that
> >> case, I was just directly instantiating the class I was testing.
> >>
> >> OK, now I'm confused by this Operator type. How is it useful? If the
> >> ctor is deleted then no derived type could ever be instantiated, could
> >> it? So why would these be types at all instead of collections of
> >> static utility functions?
> >
> > There isn't any good reason other than historical precedent; this code
> > has been around for a very long time.
>
> Good to know & Benjamin explained some of the details on IRC. A battle
> for another day, it seems. (taking bets on how long it'll be before
> Richard Smith finds this with -fcatch-undefined-behavior)
>
> - David
>



-- 
~Craig
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-commits/attachments/20121003/7b69bc91/attachment.html>