Ah, that's unfortunate. I'll take a look. Thanks! On 28 April 2015 at 20:33, Richard Smith <[email protected]> wrote:
> One of our buildbots seems unhappy: > > > http://bb.pgr.jp/builders/ninja-x64-msvc-RA-centos6/builds/11939/steps/test_all/logs/Clang-Unit%20%3A%3A%20ASTMatchers__ASTMatchersTests__HasAncestor.MatchesClosestAncestor > > Its testcase is this: > > template <typename T> struct C { > void f(int) { > struct I { void g(T) { int x; } } i; i.g(42); > } > }; > template struct C<int>; > > It looks like the problem is some interaction of your patch and delayed > template parsing (running the above code through clang with > -fdelayed-template-parsing reproduces the issue). Can you take a look? > > On Tue, Apr 28, 2015 at 5:23 PM, Michael Park <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Awesome, Thanks Richard! >> >> On 28 April 2015 at 20:11, Richard Smith <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> On Tue, Apr 28, 2015 at 4:00 PM, Michael Park <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> The answer is that we don't really know. It would be more consistent >>>>> with the non-template case for it to be ill-formed (it also seems >>>>> reasonable to say that you can't instantiate a member function until its >>>>> class is complete), but the point of instantiation rules for constexpr >>>>> functions aren't settled yet; this is part of DR1581 (still open). >>>>> >>>> >>>> Agreed. Thanks for the pointer to DR1581! >>>> >>>> LGTM >>>> >>>> >>>> As this is my first patch for Clang, I'm not all that familiar with the >>>> required process to get this patch committed. Am I required to do anything >>>> further on my end? >>>> >>> >>> I've committed your patch as r236063. Feel free to go ahead and >>> mark PR20625 as fixed. Thanks! >>> >>> >>>> Thanks, >>>> >>>> MPark. >>>> >>> >>> >> >
_______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
