Ping. On Tue, Jun 26, 2012 at 11:37 AM, David Blaikie <[email protected]> wrote: > The following code is (incorrectly) rejected: > > template<typename> void foo() = delete; > template<typename> void foo(); // remove this line & the error is not produced > template void foo<int>(); // "explicit instantiation of undefined > function template 'foo'" > > There's a few ways to fix this & I'm not sure which one is preferred: > > 1) Correct the first 3 lines of > TemplateDeclInstantiator::InitFunctionInstantiation: > > if (Tmpl->isDeletedAsWritten()) > New->setDeletedAsWritten() > > to > > if (Tmpl->isDeleted()) > New->setDeletedAsWritten() > > In this way, the implicit specialization will always correctly reflect > the fact that it's deleted and intervening redeclarations won't > confuse/break this invariant. > > 2) Remove the first 3 lines of > TemplateDeclInstantiator::InitFunctionInstantiator. Since we're only > instantiating the declaration, one could argue that it shouldn't be > prematurely turned into a definition just because it's deleted > (conversely: = delete has to be the first declaration, so having a > declaration that isn't an = delete definition is also a bit > questionable). In this case we'd need to also fix line > SemaTemplateInstantiateDecl:2572 (SemaInstantiateFunctionDefinition) > to test "IsDefined()" not just "IsDefaulted()". If that's the way > we're going to deal with deleted templates, we could go & change > SemaTemplateInstantiateDecl.cpp:1537 for member functions to match > this too (hmm, actually removing the setDefaulted/setDeleted calls > does cause at least one test to fail, so I'd have to poke around more > if I was going to do that) > > Any thoughts/preferences?
2-remove.diff
Description: Binary data
Description: Binary data_______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
