[PATCH] Implement DR61: Address of ambiguous bound methods should be disallowed

[Richard Smith]

On Sat, Jun 8, 2013 at 1:14 AM, David Majnemer <david.majnemer at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 7, 2013 at 10:12 PM, Richard Smith <richard at metafoo.co.uk>
> wrote:
>>
>> Please remove the FIXME from dr0xx.cpp.
>
>
> Done.
>
>>
>>
>> I'm not sure the changes to p2-resolve-single-template-id.cpp are
>> right -- we should have resolved the name to a single static member
>> function in those cases. EDG thinks those cases are valid.
>
>
> You are totally correct. I *wrongly* tried to rationalize GCC's behavior as
> it seemed believable. That's the last time I do that...
>
> I've attached a patch that corrects for this.

Thanks!

I think we should actually be fixing up the & operand to point to the
resolved function in CheckAddressOfOperand, rather than just checking
it. Does (for instance) decltype(&a.static_fn) work with the current
approach?

>> On Fri, Jun 7, 2013 at 9:20 PM, David Majnemer <david.majnemer at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> > Sorry, I accidentally forgot to mark the test as passing in dr0xx.cpp.
>> >
>> > An updated patch is attached.
>> >
>> > --
>> > David Majnemer
>> >
>> >
>> > On Fri, Jun 7, 2013 at 9:15 PM, David Majnemer
>> > <david.majnemer at gmail.com>
>> > wrote:
>> >>
>> >> clang currently disallows bound methods from having their address taken
>> >> but sometimes allows them if the method is overloaded in some way.
>> >>
>> >> The attached patch implements DR61 [*] which affirms that expressions
>> >> containing unresolved member access should be disallowed when
>> >> performing
>> >> "address of" operations.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> [*] http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/cwg_closed.html#61
>> >>
>> >> Thanks
>> >> --
>> >> David Majnemer
>> >
>> >
>
>