shafik added a comment.
In D79811#2034842 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D79811#2034842>, @clayborg wrote:
> The error where two of the same classes conflicted usually only happened in
> complex cases that were hard to reduce down.
>
> If I understand this correctly, the compiler should be able to auto
> synthesize these functions at will since the original class definition should
> have all of the information it needs to create them. So why do we need these
> to be added? Seems like the wrong approach IMHO. I would like the hear the
> justification for needing to add artificial functions to a class definition
> before we entertain this more. Can you elaborate on why you think these are
> needed?
Yes, the test case below shows that if we don't add the method then during
expression evaluation of let's say:
A{}
The `default member initializer` won't be done. So `x` won't be initialized to
`10` and the default constructor for `cse` will be called instead of
`ClassForSideEffect(int)`.
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D79811/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D79811
_______________________________________________
lldb-commits mailing list
lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
