On Wed, Nov 28, 2012 at 6:58 PM, NAKAMURA Takumi <[email protected]>wrote:
> > Modified: > cfe/branches/release_32/test/SemaTemplate/instantiate-overload-candidates.cpp > > URL: > http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project/cfe/branches/release_32/test/SemaTemplate/instantiate-overload-candidates.cpp?rev=168830&r1=168829&r2=168830&view=diff > > > ============================================================================== > > --- > cfe/branches/release_32/test/SemaTemplate/instantiate-overload-candidates.cpp > (original) > > +++ > cfe/branches/release_32/test/SemaTemplate/instantiate-overload-candidates.cpp > Wed Nov 28 17:44:46 2012 > > @@ -19,3 +19,34 @@ > > void test(int x) { > > f(&x, 0); > > } > > + > > +// Ensure that we instantiate an overloaded function if it's selected by > > +// overload resolution when initializing a function pointer. > > +template<typename T> struct X { > > + static T f() { T::error; } // expected-error {{has no members}} > > + static T f(bool); > > +}; > > +void (*p)() = &X<void>().f; // expected-note {{instantiation of}} > > It has been introduced in r167918 and causes failure in release_32. > > http://bb.pgr.jp/builders/clang-3stage-x86_64-linux/builds/74 > -- > error: 'error' diagnostics expected but not seen: > Line 26: has no members > error: 'note' diagnostics expected but not seen: > Line 29: instantiation of > 2 errors generated. > -- > > Pawel, I suggest you a couple of options; > > 1) Remove the extra test. > > 2) Apply Richard's r167918, too. Doug and Richard, how do you think? Yes, r167918 is a low-risk change, and seems like a good candidate for porting to the branch.
_______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
