ChuanqiXu added a comment. In D129138#3631912 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D129138#3631912>, @iains wrote:
> Perhaps we could be a little more bold about the completeness of the > implementation (at least, w.r.t the base paper `P1103`) - we pass the > relevant test cases. I added the wording like `Implemented `P1103R3`. I am not sure if it is good to say this. We made some progress indeed. But both of us know there are some FIXME remains. > As for the follow-on papers, I think we have more that can be added notes > below: > There are some test cases to be posted to phab for some of these (so maybe > allow me a few more days to get the list fully correct). > > (it will also depend on what we can land before 26th - however some of the > stuff below is already approved, so it's a matter of finding some time to > push the patches and watch the bots...) > > @ChuanqiXu if you think that more is needed on any of these (other than > `P1815` which is known partial), please let me know. > > (Please also add any relevant phab reviews from your side) > > ----- > > P1779R3: ABI isolation for member functions > > - Paper applied to WP. > > Change [dcl.inline]/7 (as edited by P1815R1): > > - This is being addressed by D128328 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D128328> > > (although we have somewhat of a moving target since some clarifications were > requested from core). > > Change [dcl.fct.def.default]/3: > > - Already handled in the constexpr/consteval code, there is no actual change > for modular cases. > > Change [class.mfct]/1: > Change [class.friend]/7: > > - D129045 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D129045>, including tests. > > ------ > > P1979R0: Resolution to US086 > > - Paper applied to WP. > - Current implementation complies: test case to be posted > CXX/module/module.import/p7.cpp > > ------ > > P1811R0 Relaxing redefinition restrictions for re-exportation robustness > > - Paper applied to WP - note there are on-going discussions in core/ext about > exports that might affect this. > > Note that there are a lot of changes here, but that the draft that includes > them is what we are working to, so it is expected that (mostly) we will need > to identify tests and/or queries about how to verify. > > Change in 6.2 [basic.def.odr] paragraph 1: > Change in 6.2 [basic.def.odr] paragraph 12: > > - no action required, these changes restore pre-P1103 behaviour (and the > paragraph 12 changes have been subsumed in following updates). > > Change in 10.5 [module.context] paragraph 7: > > test: CXX/module/module.context/p7.cpp > > Change in 10.6 [module.reach] paragraph 3: > > - D126694 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D126694> and D128328 > <https://reviews.llvm.org/D128328> > > Change in 15.2 [cpp.include] paragraph 7: > > - D128981 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D128981> provides conditional include > translation that follows the same scheme as GCC. > > Feature test macro > > - already implemented. > > ------- > > [Partial] P1815R2: Translation-unit-local entities > > Change [basic.def.odr]/10: > > - implementation complies, example provided. > > Insert before [basic.def.odr]/11 > > - D128328 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D128328> + ongoing core/ext discussions. > > Change [basic.lookup.argdep]/5: > D129174 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D129174> - overload changes. example added > Question to core on TU#3 f(x). > > ------- > > P2115R0: US069: Merging of multiple definitions for unnamed unscoped > enumerations > > - merged to WP, but ongoing discussions in core/ext might cause re-work > > testcase to be posted to phab. Thanks for the summary! But I am afraid it is too fine-grained to users. It looks like the current ReleaseNotes don't contain phab links nor new added test cases. @erichkeane @aaron.ballman may you give some advice? CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D129138/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D129138 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
