Pawel, I have confirmed. Thanks!
2012/11/30 Pawel Wodnicki <[email protected]>: > On 11/28/2012 11:09 PM, Douglas Gregor wrote: >> >> 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!). > > r167918 - Committed revision 168888. > And we have diagnostics back where they are > expected. >> >> - Doug >> >> >> > > Pawel _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
