simon_tatham added inline comments.
================
Comment at:
clang/include/clang/Tooling/Refactoring/Rename/SymbolOccurrences.h:81
+ union {
+ SourceRange SingleRange;
+ unsigned NumRanges;
----------------
simon_tatham wrote:
> This surely relies on `SourceRange` having no destructor (or rather, a
> trivial one). If that ever changes, then destruction of this class will risk
> either a spurious call to the destructor or a missing one.
>
> Is there any way to somehow arrange that a build failure will occur if the
> definition of `SourceRange` changes in that way?
... aha, found one. Such as a static assertion that
`std::is_trivially_destructible<clang::SourceLocation>::value` is 1.
Repository:
rG LLVM Github Monorepo
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D94599/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D94599
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
