On Jun 26, 2009, at 9:16 AM, Fariborz Jahanian wrote:
> On Jun 26, 2009, at 8:36 AM, Douglas Gregor wrote:
>>
>>> + AddMemberOperatorCandidates(clang::OO_Equal, SourceLocation(),
>>> Args, 2,
>>> + CandidateSet);
>>> + OverloadCandidateSet::iterator Best;
>>> + if (BestViableFunction(CandidateSet,
>>> + ClassDecl->getLocation(), Best) ==
>>> OR_Success)
>>> + return cast<CXXMethodDecl>(Best->Function);
>>> + assert(false &&
>>> + "getAssignOperatorMethod - copy assignment operator
>>> method not found");
>>> + return 0;
>>> +}
>>
>> Asserting here is just a temporary measure, right? Because it's
>> possible for one to find a deleted copy assignment operator (C+
>> +0x), and it may also be possible to end up with an ambiguity (but
>> I can't come up with a test case, so I could be wrong about that).
>
> I am expecting that I always find an unambiguous operator assign
> here. Since, I alway start the lookup with an implicit assignment
> operator already in place. But, I cannot be sure either. So, let's
> have this assert in place and see if it exposes a bug in the future.
Okay!
- Doug
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
