Try using initialization list syntax. That way the parser won't think you
are declaring a function.
OELock lock{mutex};
On Mon, Feb 29, 2016 at 12:02 PM, Brian Cole via cfe-users <
cfe-users@lists.llvm.org> wrote:
> Since switching over to clang C++11 on OS X, we had this weird C++ oddity
> surface while writing some new code. The problem is that ‘mutex’ is no
> longer a variable, it is a class type that can be interpreted as a function
> argument. That is, the following line of code can be interpreted as a
> function declaration now:
>
> OELock lock(mutex);
>
> Instead of a scoped lock acquisition as has been convention for some time
> now. The full code to recreate the subtle bug is as follows:
>
> #include <mutex>
>
> using namespace std;
>
> struct OEMutex
> {
> void Acquire() {}
> void Release() {}
> };
>
> static OEMutex _mutex;
>
> class OELock
> {
> OEMutex &_mutex;
> OELock();
> OELock(const OELock&);
> OELock& operator=(const OELock&);
>
> public:
> OELock(OEMutex &mutex) : _mutex(mutex) { _mutex.Acquire(); }
> ~OELock() { _mutex.Release(); }
> };
>
> int main()
> {
> OELock lock(mutex);
> }
>
> Ideally, we would like the compilation to fail and tell the user the
> ‘mutex’ variable can not be found. Any clever C++ trick to do that? We’ve
> tried declaring the move constructors of OELock to be private, but it still
> compiles (maybe that’s SFINAE?).
>
> Thanks,
> Brian
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> cfe-users mailing list
> cfe-users@lists.llvm.org
> http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-users
>
>
_______________________________________________
cfe-users mailing list
cfe-users@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-users
