>>! In D5690#13, @rsmith wrote:
> 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()
OK, that works.
> 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
I can probably go add this logic, but what's the reason?
================
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
----------------
rsmith wrote:
> "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"?
Sure, but see the other template instantiation note which uses this terminology.
http://reviews.llvm.org/D5690
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
