[llvm-bugs] [Bug 39927] New: [InstCombine] Attempt to replace MOVMSK with zext (bitcast to iX) to i32
https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=39927
Bug ID: 39927
Summary: [InstCombine] Attempt to replace MOVMSK with zext
(bitcast to iX) to i32
Product: libraries
Version: trunk
Hardware: PC
OS: Windows NT
Status: NEW
Severity: enhancement
Priority: P
Component: Backend: X86
Assignee: unassignedb...@nondot.org
Reporter: llvm-...@redking.me.uk
CC: craig.top...@gmail.com, llvm-bugs@lists.llvm.org,
llvm-...@redking.me.uk, spatel+l...@rotateright.com
https://godbolt.org/z/SvH3do
Very similar to what we do with SSE BLENDV cases from a comparison+sext that
can be replaced with a select, we should now be able to replace MOVMSK
intrinsics with bitcasts from the comparison result.
PMOVMSKB
MOVMSKPS
MOVMSKPD
declare i32 @llvm.x86.sse2.pmovmskb.128(<16 x i8>)
define i32 @movmsk_16i8(<16 x i8>, <16 x i8>) {
%3 = icmp sgt <16 x i8> %0, %1
%4 = sext <16 x i1> %3 to <16 x i8>
%5 = tail call i32 @llvm.x86.sse2.pmovmskb.128(<16 x i8> %4)
ret i32 %5
}
define i32 @movmsk_16i8_select(<16 x i8>, <16 x i8>) {
%3 = icmp sgt <16 x i8> %0, %1
%4 = bitcast <16 x i1> %3 to i16
%5 = zext i16 %4 to i32
ret i32 %5
}
Cases where the comparison arguments don't match the MOVMSK arguments are
trickier, but this is what I've managed so far (depending on what we do with
the MOVMSK scalar result we should be able to do a lot better):
define i32 @movmsk_8i16(<8 x i16>, <8 x i16>) {
%3 = icmp sgt <8 x i16> %0, %1
%4 = sext <8 x i1> %3 to <8 x i16>
%5 = bitcast <8 x i16> %4 to <16 x i8>
%6 = tail call i32 @llvm.x86.sse2.pmovmskb.128(<16 x i8> %5)
ret i32 %6
}
define i32 @movmsk_8i16_select(<8 x i16>, <8 x i16>) {
%3 = icmp sgt <8 x i16> %0, %1
%4 = sext <8 x i1> %3 to <8 x i16>
%5 = bitcast <8 x i16> %4 to <16 x i8>
%6 = icmp slt <16 x i8> %5, zeroinitializer
%7 = bitcast <16 x i1> %6 to i16
%8 = zext i16 %7 to i32
ret i32 %8
}
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.___
llvm-bugs mailing list
llvm-bugs@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-bugs
[llvm-bugs] Issue 11790 in oss-fuzz: llvm/llvm-opt-fuzzer--x86_64-simplifycfg: Out-of-memory in llvm_llvm-opt-fuzzer--x86_64-simplifycfg
Status: New Owner: CC: k...@google.com, masc...@google.com, jdevlieg...@apple.com, igm...@gmail.com, eney...@google.com, llvm-b...@lists.llvm.org, j...@chromium.org, v...@apple.com, mitchphi...@outlook.com, xpl...@gmail.com, akils...@apple.com Labels: ClusterFuzz Reproducible Engine-libfuzzer Proj-llvm Reported-2018-12-09 Type: Bug New issue 11790 by ClusterFuzz-External: llvm/llvm-opt-fuzzer--x86_64-simplifycfg: Out-of-memory in llvm_llvm-opt-fuzzer--x86_64-simplifycfg https://bugs.chromium.org/p/oss-fuzz/issues/detail?id=11790 Detailed report: https://oss-fuzz.com/testcase?key=5644353557495808 Project: llvm Fuzzer: libFuzzer_llvm_llvm-opt-fuzzer--x86_64-simplifycfg Fuzz target binary: llvm-opt-fuzzer--x86_64-simplifycfg Job Type: libfuzzer_asan_llvm Platform Id: linux Crash Type: Out-of-memory (exceeds 2048 MB) Crash Address: Crash State: llvm_llvm-opt-fuzzer--x86_64-simplifycfg Sanitizer: address (ASAN) Regressed: https://oss-fuzz.com/revisions?job=libfuzzer_asan_llvm&range=201801260659:201801270655 Reproducer Testcase: https://oss-fuzz.com/download?testcase_id=5644353557495808 Issue filed automatically. See https://github.com/google/oss-fuzz/blob/master/docs/reproducing.md for more information. When you fix this bug, please * mention the fix revision(s). * state whether the bug was a short-lived regression or an old bug in any stable releases. * add any other useful information. This information can help downstream consumers. If you need to contact the OSS-Fuzz team with a question, concern, or any other feedback, please file an issue at https://github.com/google/oss-fuzz/issues. -- You received this message because: 1. You were specifically CC'd on the issue You may adjust your notification preferences at: https://bugs.chromium.org/hosting/settings Reply to this email to add a comment. ___ llvm-bugs mailing list llvm-bugs@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-bugs
[llvm-bugs] [Bug 39928] New: Fails to detect redefinition of struct when nesting in C11 program.
https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=39928
Bug ID: 39928
Summary: Fails to detect redefinition of struct when nesting in
C11 program.
Product: clang
Version: trunk
Hardware: All
OS: All
Status: NEW
Severity: normal
Priority: P
Component: -New Bugs
Assignee: unassignedclangb...@nondot.org
Reporter: anders.granlun...@gmail.com
CC: htmldevelo...@gmail.com, llvm-bugs@lists.llvm.org,
neeil...@live.com, richard-l...@metafoo.co.uk
Consider the following C11 program (prog.c):
int main()
{
struct S { struct S { int a; } b; };
}
It was compiled with the following command line:
clang prog.c -std=c11 -pedantic-errors "-w"
The expected behaviour was to get an error about redefinition of the struct S,
but no errors are given. The two struct definitions are in the same scope
(block scope) so they should conflict. There are no struct scopes in C11.
Note that gcc gives the expected error.
Online compiler link: https://wandbox.org/permlink/JeT9d5XpZLOxJLuj
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.___
llvm-bugs mailing list
llvm-bugs@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-bugs
[llvm-bugs] [Bug 39929] New: Problem when declaring enum constant with old style function parameter declaration in C11.
https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=39929
Bug ID: 39929
Summary: Problem when declaring enum constant with old style
function parameter declaration in C11.
Product: clang
Version: trunk
Hardware: All
OS: All
Status: NEW
Severity: normal
Priority: P
Component: -New Bugs
Assignee: unassignedclangb...@nondot.org
Reporter: anders.granlun...@gmail.com
CC: htmldevelo...@gmail.com, llvm-bugs@lists.llvm.org,
neeil...@live.com, richard-l...@metafoo.co.uk
Consider the following C11 program (prog.c):
void f(e)
enum { x } e;
{
x;
}
int main()
{
}
I was compiling this program with:
clang prog.c -std=c11 -pedantic-errors "-w"
The expected behaviour is that it should work, but I get the following error:
error: use of undeclared identifier 'x'
Note that it works fine when using the new style of declaring function
parameters.
Also note that it works fine in gcc.
Link to online compiler:
https://wandbox.org/permlink/CGczhD2xFRJkUzTs
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.___
llvm-bugs mailing list
llvm-bugs@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-bugs
[llvm-bugs] [Bug 36994] [llvm-exegesis] Add support for AMD CPUs
https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=36994 Simon Pilgrim changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |FIXED Status|NEW |RESOLVED Fixed By Commit(s)||348617, 348721 --- Comment #4 from Simon Pilgrim --- Resolving - we now have 'basic' (cycle/uops) counter coverage for most AMD CPUs going back well over a decade, and FPU perf counters for btver/bdver/znver targets (annoyingly AMD's perf counters for other ALUs is awful). Even if the CPU doesn't have a scheduler model, llvm-exegesis will report the counters we now specify, which should help anyone that wants to create the missing models. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.___ llvm-bugs mailing list llvm-bugs@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-bugs
[llvm-bugs] Issue 11776 in oss-fuzz: llvm/clang-fuzzer: Stack-overflow in GetFullTypeForDeclarator
Comment #1 on issue 11776 by ClusterFuzz-External: llvm/clang-fuzzer: Stack-overflow in GetFullTypeForDeclarator https://bugs.chromium.org/p/oss-fuzz/issues/detail?id=11776#c1 ClusterFuzz has detected this issue as fixed in range 201812080235:201812090231. Detailed report: https://oss-fuzz.com/testcase?key=5765470997708800 Project: llvm Fuzzer: libFuzzer_llvm_clang-fuzzer Fuzz target binary: clang-fuzzer Job Type: libfuzzer_asan_llvm Platform Id: linux Crash Type: Stack-overflow Crash Address: 0x7ffc0cfb4eb8 Crash State: GetFullTypeForDeclarator clang::Sema::GetTypeForDeclarator clang::Sema::ActOnBlockArguments Sanitizer: address (ASAN) Regressed: https://oss-fuzz.com/revisions?job=libfuzzer_asan_llvm&range=201812050231:201812060233 Fixed: https://oss-fuzz.com/revisions?job=libfuzzer_asan_llvm&range=201812080235:201812090231 Reproducer Testcase: https://oss-fuzz.com/download?testcase_id=5765470997708800 See https://github.com/google/oss-fuzz/blob/master/docs/reproducing.md for more information. If you suspect that the result above is incorrect, try re-doing that job on the test case report page. -- You received this message because: 1. You were specifically CC'd on the issue You may adjust your notification preferences at: https://bugs.chromium.org/hosting/settings Reply to this email to add a comment. ___ llvm-bugs mailing list llvm-bugs@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-bugs
[llvm-bugs] Issue 11776 in oss-fuzz: llvm/clang-fuzzer: Stack-overflow in GetFullTypeForDeclarator
Updates: Labels: ClusterFuzz-Verified Status: Verified Comment #2 on issue 11776 by ClusterFuzz-External: llvm/clang-fuzzer: Stack-overflow in GetFullTypeForDeclarator https://bugs.chromium.org/p/oss-fuzz/issues/detail?id=11776#c2 ClusterFuzz testcase 5765470997708800 is verified as fixed, so closing issue as verified. If this is incorrect, please file a bug on https://github.com/google/oss-fuzz/issues/new -- You received this message because: 1. You were specifically CC'd on the issue You may adjust your notification preferences at: https://bugs.chromium.org/hosting/settings Reply to this email to add a comment. ___ llvm-bugs mailing list llvm-bugs@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-bugs
[llvm-bugs] Issue 10907 in oss-fuzz: llvm/clang-format-fuzzer: Timeout in llvm_clang-format-fuzzer
Comment #4 on issue 10907 by ClusterFuzz-External: llvm/clang-format-fuzzer: Timeout in llvm_clang-format-fuzzer https://bugs.chromium.org/p/oss-fuzz/issues/detail?id=10907#c4 ClusterFuzz has detected this issue as fixed in range 201812080235:201812090231. Detailed report: https://oss-fuzz.com/testcase?key=5750465615101952 Project: llvm Fuzzer: libFuzzer_llvm_clang-format-fuzzer Fuzz target binary: clang-format-fuzzer Job Type: libfuzzer_asan_llvm Platform Id: linux Crash Type: Timeout (exceeds 25 secs) Crash Address: Crash State: llvm_clang-format-fuzzer Sanitizer: address (ASAN) Regressed: https://oss-fuzz.com/revisions?job=libfuzzer_asan_llvm&range=201808010242:201808040250 Fixed: https://oss-fuzz.com/revisions?job=libfuzzer_asan_llvm&range=201812080235:201812090231 Reproducer Testcase: https://oss-fuzz.com/download?testcase_id=5750465615101952 See https://github.com/google/oss-fuzz/blob/master/docs/reproducing.md for more information. If you suspect that the result above is incorrect, try re-doing that job on the test case report page. -- You received this message because: 1. You were specifically CC'd on the issue You may adjust your notification preferences at: https://bugs.chromium.org/hosting/settings Reply to this email to add a comment. ___ llvm-bugs mailing list llvm-bugs@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-bugs
[llvm-bugs] Issue 10907 in oss-fuzz: llvm/clang-format-fuzzer: Timeout in llvm_clang-format-fuzzer
Updates: Labels: ClusterFuzz-Verified Status: Verified Comment #5 on issue 10907 by ClusterFuzz-External: llvm/clang-format-fuzzer: Timeout in llvm_clang-format-fuzzer https://bugs.chromium.org/p/oss-fuzz/issues/detail?id=10907#c5 ClusterFuzz testcase 5750465615101952 is verified as fixed, so closing issue as verified. If this is incorrect, please file a bug on https://github.com/google/oss-fuzz/issues/new -- You received this message because: 1. You were specifically CC'd on the issue You may adjust your notification preferences at: https://bugs.chromium.org/hosting/settings Reply to this email to add a comment. ___ llvm-bugs mailing list llvm-bugs@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-bugs
[llvm-bugs] [Bug 39930] New: Clang thinks that C11 program does not declare anything but it does.
https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=39930
Bug ID: 39930
Summary: Clang thinks that C11 program does not declare
anything but it does.
Product: clang
Version: trunk
Hardware: All
OS: All
Status: NEW
Severity: normal
Priority: P
Component: -New Bugs
Assignee: unassignedclangb...@nondot.org
Reporter: anders.granlun...@gmail.com
CC: htmldevelo...@gmail.com, llvm-bugs@lists.llvm.org,
neeil...@live.com, richard-l...@metafoo.co.uk
Consider the following C11 program (prog.c):
int main()
{
struct { enum { a } b; };
}
This program does NOT violate rule 6.7.2 in the C11 standard since the
declaration declares a member of an enum (a).
I tried to compile it with the following command line:
clang prog.c -std=c11 -pedantic-errors "-w"
I get the following unexpected error message:
error: declaration does not declare anything
This is wrong. The declaration does declare the enum member a and according
to the C11 standard it does not need to declare anything else.
Link to online compiler:
https://wandbox.org/permlink/faE68OsNgwxxizMs
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.___
llvm-bugs mailing list
llvm-bugs@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-bugs
[llvm-bugs] Issue 11791 in oss-fuzz: llvm/clang-fuzzer: Stack-overflow in clang::FunctionProtoType::getExtProtoInfo
Status: New Owner: CC: k...@google.com, masc...@google.com, jdevlieg...@apple.com, igm...@gmail.com, eney...@google.com, llvm-b...@lists.llvm.org, j...@chromium.org, v...@apple.com, mitchphi...@outlook.com, xpl...@gmail.com, akils...@apple.com Labels: ClusterFuzz Stability-Memory-AddressSanitizer Reproducible Engine-libfuzzer Proj-llvm Reported-2018-12-09 Type: Bug New issue 11791 by ClusterFuzz-External: llvm/clang-fuzzer: Stack-overflow in clang::FunctionProtoType::getExtProtoInfo https://bugs.chromium.org/p/oss-fuzz/issues/detail?id=11791 Detailed report: https://oss-fuzz.com/testcase?key=5636511282757632 Project: llvm Fuzzer: libFuzzer_llvm_clang-fuzzer Fuzz target binary: clang-fuzzer Job Type: libfuzzer_asan_llvm Platform Id: linux Crash Type: Stack-overflow Crash Address: 0x7ffc0f75aac8 Crash State: clang::FunctionProtoType::getExtProtoInfo clang::FunctionProtoType::Profile llvm::ContextualFoldingSetclang::ASTContext&>::NodeEq Sanitizer: address (ASAN) Reproducer Testcase: https://oss-fuzz.com/download?testcase_id=5636511282757632 Issue filed automatically. See https://github.com/google/oss-fuzz/blob/master/docs/reproducing.md for more information. When you fix this bug, please * mention the fix revision(s). * state whether the bug was a short-lived regression or an old bug in any stable releases. * add any other useful information. This information can help downstream consumers. If you need to contact the OSS-Fuzz team with a question, concern, or any other feedback, please file an issue at https://github.com/google/oss-fuzz/issues. -- You received this message because: 1. You were specifically CC'd on the issue You may adjust your notification preferences at: https://bugs.chromium.org/hosting/settings Reply to this email to add a comment. ___ llvm-bugs mailing list llvm-bugs@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-bugs
[llvm-bugs] [Bug 39931] New: False positive on -Wmissing-braces for structure with non-integer subobject
https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=39931
Bug ID: 39931
Summary: False positive on -Wmissing-braces for structure with
non-integer subobject
Product: clang
Version: 7.0
Hardware: PC
OS: Linux
Status: NEW
Severity: normal
Priority: P
Component: Frontend
Assignee: unassignedclangb...@nondot.org
Reporter: pe...@lekensteyn.nl
CC: llvm-bugs@lists.llvm.org, neeil...@live.com,
richard-l...@metafoo.co.uk
When the first subobject of a structure within another structure is not a
signed integer (e.g. unsigned integer, char, short, long), it triggers a
-Wmissing-braces warning.
Reproducer:
struct s1 {
short f1; // "int f1" is fine.
};
struct s2 {
struct s1 f2;
int x;
};
struct s2 x = {0};
// warning: suggest braces around initialization of subobject
[-Wmissing-braces]
An earlier issue with the "universal zero initializer" was resolved with bug
21689 (Clang 6), but this one still remains.
Found in:
clang 7.0.0-1 (Arch Linux)
clang version 8.0.0 (trunk 348720) (llvm/trunk 348724)
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.___
llvm-bugs mailing list
llvm-bugs@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-bugs
[llvm-bugs] [Bug 32156] Should = { 0 }; fire -Wmissing-braces in C99?
https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=32156 Peter Wu changed: What|Removed |Added CC||pe...@lekensteyn.nl Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE --- Comment #5 from Peter Wu --- The example in the original report seems fixed and seems a duplicate, marking it as such. (There still seem to be other unhandled edge cases such that trigger a -Wmissing-braces warning though, bug 39931). *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 21689 *** -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.___ llvm-bugs mailing list llvm-bugs@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-bugs
[llvm-bugs] [Bug 39932] New: An undefined __label__-declared label is unnecessarily a hard error
https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=39932
Bug ID: 39932
Summary: An undefined __label__-declared label is unnecessarily
a hard error
Product: clang
Version: unspecified
Hardware: PC
OS: Linux
Status: NEW
Severity: enhancement
Priority: P
Component: Frontend
Assignee: unassignedclangb...@nondot.org
Reporter: psko...@gmail.com
CC: llvm-bugs@lists.llvm.org, neeil...@live.com,
richard-l...@metafoo.co.uk
int main()
{
__label__ unused_label;
return 0;
}
Fails on clang but succeeds on gcc and tinycc.
I think this ought to be a silenacable warning instead of an error.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.___
llvm-bugs mailing list
llvm-bugs@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-bugs
[llvm-bugs] Issue 11795 in oss-fuzz: llvm/clang-fuzzer: Stack-overflow in clang::DiagnosticIDs::isUnrecoverable
Status: New Owner: CC: k...@google.com, masc...@google.com, jdevlieg...@apple.com, igm...@gmail.com, eney...@google.com, llvm-b...@lists.llvm.org, j...@chromium.org, v...@apple.com, mitchphi...@outlook.com, xpl...@gmail.com, akils...@apple.com Labels: ClusterFuzz Stability-Memory-AddressSanitizer Reproducible Engine-libfuzzer Proj-llvm Reported-2018-12-10 Type: Bug New issue 11795 by ClusterFuzz-External: llvm/clang-fuzzer: Stack-overflow in clang::DiagnosticIDs::isUnrecoverable https://bugs.chromium.org/p/oss-fuzz/issues/detail?id=11795 Detailed report: https://oss-fuzz.com/testcase?key=5751748677861376 Project: llvm Fuzzer: libFuzzer_llvm_clang-fuzzer Fuzz target binary: clang-fuzzer Job Type: libfuzzer_asan_llvm Platform Id: linux Crash Type: Stack-overflow Crash Address: 0x7fff5ac75b08 Crash State: clang::DiagnosticIDs::isUnrecoverable clang::DiagnosticIDs::ProcessDiag clang::DiagnosticsEngine::EmitCurrentDiagnostic Sanitizer: address (ASAN) Regressed: https://oss-fuzz.com/revisions?job=libfuzzer_asan_llvm&range=201803270519:201803280525 Reproducer Testcase: https://oss-fuzz.com/download?testcase_id=5751748677861376 Issue filed automatically. See https://github.com/google/oss-fuzz/blob/master/docs/reproducing.md for more information. When you fix this bug, please * mention the fix revision(s). * state whether the bug was a short-lived regression or an old bug in any stable releases. * add any other useful information. This information can help downstream consumers. If you need to contact the OSS-Fuzz team with a question, concern, or any other feedback, please file an issue at https://github.com/google/oss-fuzz/issues. -- You received this message because: 1. You were specifically CC'd on the issue You may adjust your notification preferences at: https://bugs.chromium.org/hosting/settings Reply to this email to add a comment. ___ llvm-bugs mailing list llvm-bugs@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-bugs
[llvm-bugs] [Bug 39933] New: Clang prints incorrect diagnostic notes chain for an implicitly deleted move assignment operator
https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=39933
Bug ID: 39933
Summary: Clang prints incorrect diagnostic notes chain for an
implicitly deleted move assignment operator
Product: clang
Version: trunk
Hardware: PC
OS: Linux
Status: NEW
Severity: normal
Priority: P
Component: Frontend
Assignee: unassignedclangb...@nondot.org
Reporter: ori...@gmx.fr
CC: llvm-bugs@lists.llvm.org, neeil...@live.com,
richard-l...@metafoo.co.uk
Consider the following code:
struct A { A& operator=(A&&); };
struct B { B(B&&); };
//struct B { B(B&&); B& operator=(B&&); };
struct C { A a; B b; };
struct D { C c; D& operator=(D&&) = default; };
Since https://reviews.llvm.org/rL343285 it triggers
-Wdefaulted-function-deleted: operator=(D&&) can not be defaulted because
operator=(B&&) is missing. (The fix is to use the commented out definition of
B.) However, Clang prints:
x.cpp:5:20: warning: explicitly defaulted move assignment operator is
implicitly deleted [-Wdefaulted-function-deleted]
struct D { C c; D& operator=(D&&) = default; };
^
x.cpp:5:14: note: move assignment operator of 'D' is implicitly deleted because
field 'c' has a deleted move assignment operator
struct D { C c; D& operator=(D&&) = default; };
^
x.cpp:4:14: note: copy assignment operator of 'C' is implicitly deleted because
field 'a' has a deleted copy assignment operator
struct C { A a; B b; };
^
x.cpp:1:15: note: copy assignment operator is implicitly deleted because 'A'
has a user-declared move assignment operator
struct A { A& operator=(A&&); };
^
All these diagnostics are true, but the "copy assignment operator of 'C' is
implicitly deleted" and the following are irrelevant, since what D needs from C
is a move assignment operator. The diagnostics do not even mention the culprit
B.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.___
llvm-bugs mailing list
llvm-bugs@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-bugs
