dblaikie accepted this revision. dblaikie added a comment. In D133425#3777615 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D133425#3777615>, @aaron.ballman wrote:
> In D133425#3777598 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D133425#3777598>, @aaron.ballman > wrote: > >> In D133425#3775353 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D133425#3775353>, @ldionne >> wrote: >> >>> 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. > > It is worth noting that this won't resolve the issue when using libstdc++ and > Clang's behavior with this diagnostic differs from GCC's: > https://godbolt.org/z/YMznh4Weq Yeah, seems worth making this work when using libstdc++ too. So previously/currently-without-this-patch the diagnostic was suppressed if the use of ctad was in a system header (suppression based on the generic/builtin diagnostic suppression infrastructure) & now it'll suppress if that happens, or if the template is defined in a system header. Seems fair to me. (but welcome not to take my approval as authoritative if you're looking for more/other feedback) 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
