li.zhe.hua added inline comments.
================ Comment at: clang/include/clang/Tooling/Transformer/Transformer.h:103-108 + template <typename ConsumerFn, + std::enable_if_t< + llvm::is_invocable< + ConsumerFn, + llvm::Expected<llvm::MutableArrayRef<AtomicChange>>>::value, + int> = 0> ---------------- li.zhe.hua wrote: > asoffer wrote: > > Given that we're simply passing this off to the NoMetadataImpl which > > accepts a std::function, I don't see any reason to accept a generic > > parameter via sfinae. We could just accept the std::function and move it. > > Then the implicit conversion from whatever is passed in to std::function > > will do the heavy sfinae lifting. > So, I ran into this during [[ https://reviews.llvm.org/D119745 | D119745 ]], > where one of the Windows CI builds doesn't have the fix for [[ > http://cplusplus.github.io/LWG/lwg-defects.html#2132 | DR 2132 ]] backported, > so overloading on different `std::function` doesn't work. (To be clear, this > using `std::function` and doing the whole overloading thing works fine in > clang locally.) > > Thoughts? Nevermind! I just tried and it works. I suspect this is because the non-template constructor and the template constructor are not ambiguous, as the non-template is tried first, and if it doesn't match, it goes to the template. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D120360/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D120360 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
