Richard Smith <[email protected]> writes: > On Wed, May 21, 2014 at 8:57 PM, Justin Bogner <[email protected]> wrote: > #include <functional> > struct A { > int foo(int) const { return 1; } > }; > void foo() { > std::function<int(const A*, int)> f = &A::foo; > } > > This no longer compiles. Is it a problem in libc++, or with this change? > > This is a bug in libc++'s is_function implementation; it doesn't do the right > thing for function types with cv-qualifiers or a ref-qualifier.
Okay, so if I understand correctly, the change in behaviour is that this should return true and is now returning false: std::is_function<int (int) const>::value and the problem is that your change has exposed a bug in libc++ where itt isn't doing the right thing here. Is this correct? _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
