On Thu, Sep 13, 2018 at 08:58:34PM +0300, Ville Voutilainen wrote: > On 13 September 2018 at 20:41, Jason Merrill <ja...@redhat.com> wrote: > >> Okay. Do you think we should have an sfk_kind for non-canonical > >> copy/move operations? That would presumably make it a tad more > >> straightforward to go from > >> fndecl to whatever class bits, instead of what's currently there, where we > >> say "yeah I had a fndecl, > >> now I turned it into an sfk_kind that says it's a copy constructor, but > >> guess which one when you're > >> deeming its triviality". ;) > > > > I suppose it would be possible to have a more detailed sfk_kind for > > distinguishing between different signatures, but I'm inclined instead > > to stop using sfk_kind in trivial_fn_p. Even if having an enumeration > > is convenient for dispatch (or bitmapping), it doesn't need to be the > > same enum. > > Yeah, the idea of using a different enum dawned on me straight after > sending that email. ;) > I'll give this approach a spin, more bits into the lang_type and a > different mapping, that way we should indeed > get correct answers for all cases.
Hi Ville, any updates? Marek
