sammccall added a comment. As you said, we can't land this before the branch cut, and we shouldn't land this until we've run internal experiments to show it's not horribly crashy.
================ Comment at: clang/test/CXX/temp/temp.constr/temp.constr.order/function-templates.cpp:71 +// expected-error@-1 {{call to 'f' is ambiguous}} \ + expected-error@-1 {{invalid application of 'sizeof' to an incomplete type 'void'}} ---------------- this is really nice :-) ================ Comment at: clang/test/CXX/temp/temp.decls/temp.variadic/fixed-expansion.cpp:129 + S<int, int, double> &s1 = f({}, 0, 0.0); // expected-error {{no matching function}} \ + expected-error {{non-const lvalue reference to type 'S<int, int, double>' cannot bind to a value of unrelated type 'int'}} } ---------------- hokein wrote: > the secondary diagnostic is technically correct, but I don't quite like it, > it is confusing, ok to leave it as-is? or fix that before landing this patch? I don't think it's technically correct (the `int` fallback is an implementation artifact, albeit one that leaks quite often). This example looks pretty obscure though, it'd be nice to fix it at some point but I don't think it's severe enough to block on the fix. Fix ideas: - the instantiation of `f` should be invalid, right? Maybe we avoid considering return types for invalid decls when computing recovery type (or always give up in this case). - we could eventually try to replace the use of `int` for these cases - we could special-case `int`, and don't allow RecoveryExprs to have type `int`, reflecting the fact that it's used for these cases Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D82657/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D82657 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits