jdennett added a comment. In D56731#1358907 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D56731#1358907>, @Quuxplusone wrote:
> For my own use-cases, I will continue to want a 100% comprehensive `-Wctad`. > All these "heuristics" you're proposing seem very ad-hoc, and make a lot of > work for the compiler vendor, and seem complicated enough that I would still > worry about bugs slipping through the cracks. Whereas, if the user can simply > 100% outlaw CTAD, then they don't ever have to worry. That's fair; I don't think anyone here is speaking against such a diagnostic (though maybe the name will be a bikeshed). It's just that this patch is a solution for a different problem: allowing the sufficiently safe uses of CTAD without allowing too many bugs. CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D56731/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D56731 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
