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

[Craig Topper]

Richard, is this something you can fix in clang or should I file a bug?

On Wed, Oct 3, 2012 at 3:28 PM, Richard Smith <richard at metafoo.co.uk> wrote:

> Yes, this code is ill-formed, by [class.virtual]p16: "A function with a
> deleted definition (8.4) shall not override a function that does not have a
> deleted definition. Likewise, a function that does not have a deleted
> definition shall not override a function with a deleted definition."
>
> On Wed, Oct 3, 2012 at 3:22 PM, Craig Topper <craig.topper at gmail.com>wrote:
>
>> 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
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> llvm-commits mailing list
>> llvm-commits at cs.uiuc.edu
>> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvm-commits
>>
>>
>


-- 
~Craig
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-commits/attachments/20121004/4c42322a/attachment.html>