(it's helpful to attach the patch directly to the review thread here, rather than (or at least in addition to) the bug - makes it easier for people to find and review)
& rather than creating other threads on the subject (I just saw your mail to cfe-dev), it's reasonable to ping a review thread (simply reply-all with the word 'ping') every week or so. Sometimes it takes a little while for people to get to things, though I don't imagine it'll take too long. http://llvm.org/docs/DeveloperPolicy.html#making-and-submitting-a-patch discusses some of these issues. On Sat, Oct 4, 2014 at 6:34 AM, Anton Bikineev <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi all, > > I recently found that Clang doesn't behave similiar as GCC > in case of partial specialization ater implicit or explicit > specialization of class template. GCC gives diagnostic like > > "error: partial specialization of 'A<const T*>' after instantiation of > 'A<const char*>'" > > while Clang just ignores it. > > C++ [temp.class.spec]p.1 says, that: > "A partial specialization shall be declared before the first > use of a class template specialization that would make use of > the partial specialization as the result of an implicit or explicit > instantiation in every translation unit in which such a use occurs; > no diagnostic is required." > > I'm not sure, probably Clang has its own politics for this. I also > submitted a bug http://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=21156 and > wrote a patch, which I attached to bug. > > I just was wondering, does it really make sense? I'm kind of newbie > in Clang and my code may be incorrect. > > Thanks in advance. > > _______________________________________________ > cfe-commits mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits >
_______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
