Two more things I'd like to see tested:
1: Explicit instantiation of a class should presumably *not* instantiate
default initializers unless they're actually used by some constructor that is
explicitly instantiated. For instance:
template<typename T> struct X {
X();
int n = T::error;
};
template struct X<int>; // ok
template<typename T> X<T>::X() {}
template struct X<float>; // error in instantiation of X<float>::n's
initializer from X<float>::X()
2: Instantiation of a function with a local class should always instantiate the
default initializers, even if they're not used. For instance:
template<typename T> void f() {
struct X {
int n = T::error;
};
}
void g() { f<int>(); } // error
================
Comment at: include/clang/Basic/DiagnosticSemaKinds.td:6194-6195
@@ +6193,4 @@
+ : Error<"cannot use defaulted default constructor of %0 within the class "
+ "outside of member functions due to non-static data member "
+ "initializer for %1">;
+def err_in_class_initializer_not_yet_parsed_outer_class
----------------
"non-static data member initializer" is a term the GCC folks made up; I don't
like it =) How about:
"... because %1 has an initializer"?
http://reviews.llvm.org/D5690
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
