aaron.ballman added a comment. In D133425#3775353 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D133425#3775353>, @ldionne wrote:
> Wouldn't re-applying > https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/commit/fcd549a7d8284a8e7c763fee3da2206acd8cdc4f > (which had been reverted IIUC) be a more precise fix for this problem? We'd > suppress the warning, but only for classes that we know are OK to use with > CTAD. Oh that would be a great solution to this! Do you recall why that change was reverted? > It is a fact that due to the nature of CTAD (which is enabled by default > based on some general rules), several classes in the standard library that > predated CTAD were not really designed with CTAD in mind, and CTAD should > arguably not be used with them. > > Re-applying `fcd549a7d8284a8e7c763fee3da2206acd8cdc4f` would not require any > Clang changes. I think that would be a good solution if it's workable, at least for the issue we're seeing internally. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D133425/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D133425 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
