On Wed, Nov 28, 2012 at 7:04 PM, Richard Smith <[email protected]>wrote:
> 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. > Hmm, do we only have half of that change on the branch?
_______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
