On Mon, Aug 5, 2013 at 1:19 PM, John McCall <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Aug 5, 2013, at 11:49 AM, Richard Smith <[email protected]> > wrote: > > Author: rsmith > Date: Mon Aug 5 13:49:43 2013 > New Revision: 187735 > > URL: http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project?rev=187735&view=rev > Log: > Implement C++'s restrictions on the type of an expression passed to a > vararg > function: it can't be 'void' and it can't be an initializer list. We give a > hard error for these rather than treating them as undefined behavior (we > can > and probably should do the same for non-POD types in C++11, but as of this > change we don't). > > > Doesn’t this change SFINAE behavior? > I'm not sure whether your "this" binds to the change or to the parenthetical in the comment. For the former, yes, and it's supposed to: 5.2.2/7 says the program is ill-formed. For the latter, this is "conditionally-supported with implementation-defined semantics". Per 1.4/2, this means "when the implementation does not support that construct, a conforming implementation shall issue at least one diagnostic message", and the intent is that implementations treat such constructs as being ill-formed if they do not support them. Our current implementation is conforming, if unfriendly. FWIW, g++ rejects such constructs.
_______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
