GorNishanov marked 2 inline comments as done.
GorNishanov added inline comments.
================
Comment at: include/experimental/coroutine:294
+
+inline _LIBCPP_ALWAYS_INLINE
+noop_coroutine_handle noop_coroutine() _NOEXCEPT {
----------------
lewissbaker wrote:
> EricWF wrote:
> > This should just be `_LIBCPP_INLINE_VISIBILITY`. We try not to use
> > `_LIBCPP_ALWAYS_INLINE` in new code.
> Should the same change be applied to the other usages of
> `_LIBCPP_ALWAYS_INLINE` in this file?
> Should some of them be marked `constexpr` to be consistent with
> `noop_coroutine_handle` member functions above?
Those were added by @EricWF, so from my perspective they are immutable.
================
Comment at: include/experimental/coroutine:288
+
+ coroutine_handle() {
+ this->__handle_ = __builtin_coro_noop();
----------------
EricWF wrote:
> Can `__builtin_coro_noop` produce a constant expression?
No. llvm generates this value, so from clang perspective, it is not a constant.
At llvm level it is a private per TU constant, so invocations of
noop_coroutine() in different TUs linked into the same program will return you
different values.
https://reviews.llvm.org/D45121
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
