[llvm] r260654 - [ADT] OptionSet: ifdef out some code that seems to be crashing MSVC.

[Jordan Rose via llvm-commits]

> On Feb 12, 2016, at 7:58 , Argyrios Kyrtzidis <akyrtzi at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> On Feb 12, 2016, at 5:08 AM, Aaron Ballman <aaron at aaronballman.com <mailto:aaron at aaronballman.com>> wrote:
>> 
>> On Thu, Feb 11, 2016 at 11:36 PM, Argyrios Kyrtzidis via llvm-commits
>> <llvm-commits at lists.llvm.org <mailto:llvm-commits at lists.llvm.org>> wrote:
>>> Author: akirtzidis
>>> Date: Thu Feb 11 22:36:48 2016
>>> New Revision: 260654
>>> 
>>> URL: http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project?rev=260654&view=rev <http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project?rev=260654&view=rev>
>>> Log:
>>> [ADT] OptionSet: ifdef out some code that seems to be crashing MSVC.
>>> 
>>> Modified:
>>>   llvm/trunk/include/llvm/ADT/OptionSet.h
>>> 
>>> Modified: llvm/trunk/include/llvm/ADT/OptionSet.h
>>> URL: http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project/llvm/trunk/include/llvm/ADT/OptionSet.h?rev=260654&r1=260653&r2=260654&view=diff <http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project/llvm/trunk/include/llvm/ADT/OptionSet.h?rev=260654&r1=260653&r2=260654&view=diff>
>>> ==============================================================================
>>> --- llvm/trunk/include/llvm/ADT/OptionSet.h (original)
>>> +++ llvm/trunk/include/llvm/ADT/OptionSet.h Thu Feb 11 22:36:48 2016
>>> @@ -116,6 +116,8 @@ public:
>>>  }
>>> 
>>> private:
>>> +#ifndef _MSC_VER
>>> +  // This is crashing MSVC.
>>>  template <typename T>
>>>  static auto _checkResultTypeOperatorOr(T t) -> decltype(t | t) { return T(); }
>>> 
>>> @@ -124,6 +126,7 @@ private:
>>>  static_assert(!std::is_same<decltype(_checkResultTypeOperatorOr(Flags())),
>>>                              Flags>::value,
>>>                "operator| should produce an OptionSet");
>>> +#endif
>>> };
>> 
>> Are there plans to correct this for MSVC and recommit? Is there a
>> requirement for this to use automatic type deduction instead of using
>> the decltype in the is_same check, like this:
>> 
>> http://coliru.stacked-crooked.com/a/94f224987d9feaee <http://coliru.stacked-crooked.com/a/94f224987d9feaee>
> 
> + Jordan who added that.

That seems perfectly fine to me—actually, it seems like an improvement. I don't know why I did it the way I did.

Actually, this would be an even better improvement:

  static_assert(std::is_same<decltype(Flags() | Flags()), 
	                           OptionSet<Flags>>::value,
                "operator| should produce an OptionSet");

…but I'm not sure if that will break any of our existing use cases!

Jordan

P.S. Argyrios, please switch the uses of swift::OptionSet over to llvm::OptionSet at some point.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-commits/attachments/20160212/33cd71d5/attachment.html>