[DRAFT] Make IsRelocatable use the Clang builtin __is_trivially_relocatable(T) #2159
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Clang 18's
__is_trivially_relocatable(T)
isn't yet compatible with Folly's use of the term; false negatives are fine, but Clang dangerously gives false positives. However, after llvm/llvm-project#84621, the builtin will no longer give any (known) false positives, which means it will be safe for Folly to start using the builtin as of Clang 19+.I'm posting this here hoping to kickstart a Folly discussion — "is Folly in favor of the Clang patch? would Folly indeed start using the Clang builtin, if it were long-term supported with the Folly(/Abseil/BSL/Qt/P1144/etc) semantics?"
Please do not merge this patch until llvm/llvm-project#84621 is successfully merged upstream; that patch is a prerequisite for this one.