On Nov 28, 2012, at 9:09 PM, Pawel Wodnicki <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 11/28/2012 10:41 PM, Douglas Gregor wrote: >> >> On Nov 28, 2012, at 8:08 PM, Pawel Wodnicki <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> Takumi, >>> >>>>> 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. >>>> >>> >>> Yeah, I am was just looking at this. >>> >>>> 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? >>> >>> I think applying r167918 is the best way and I'll test it but let's wait >>> till Doug and Richard had a chance to look at this. >> >> r167514 is small, looks good, and fixes a regression. Let's take it. >> >> - Doug >> >> > Doug, > Did you have r167918 in mind rather then r167514 ? > Pawel Yes, sorry. Pasted the wrong revision number (but reviewed the right one!). - Doug _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
