ojhunt wrote:
Ok, reduced the test case, removing the typedef and use of `operator`.
```cpp
void f <> ( class {private:} );
```
I think this is the actual case that warrants this test, but I think the
reported bug is a parser bug that gets us into this state, similar to the
reduction:
```cpp
typedef ( f <>) ( class {private:} );
^
```
I think this should trigger a parse error, and the ()s immediately make me
suspicious
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/181404
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
