Thanks! Committed in r209891 ~Aaron
On Thu, May 29, 2014 at 10:44 PM, Richard Smith <[email protected]> wrote: > On Tue, May 27, 2014 at 5:41 AM, Aaron Ballman <[email protected]> > wrote: >> >> I noticed that >> clang\test\CXX\basic\basic.lookup\basic.lookup.qual\p6-0x.cpp >> is XFAILed for all targets with the comment "Our C++0x doesn't >> currently have specialized destructor name handling, since the >> specification is still in flux." >> >> That seems a bit outdated. From looking at the standard, I believe >> this test should be unXFAILed, the comment removed, and >> expected-no-diagnostics added to the test. The contents of the test >> are: >> >> struct C { >> typedef int I; >> }; >> >> typedef int I1, I2; >> extern int* p; >> extern int* q; >> >> void f() { >> p->C::I::~I(); >> q->I1::~I2(); >> } >> >> struct A { >> ~A(); >> }; >> >> typedef A AB; >> int main() { >> AB *p; >> p->AB::~AB(); >> } >> >> Any disagreement with that direction? > > > Sounds good to me. There's some weirdnesses with cv-qualifiers in the C++11 > rules, but we have a core issue to get them fixed (core issue 1920), and > that doesn't affect this test. _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
