[cfe-commits] [llvm-branch-commits] [cfe-branch] r168830 - in /cfe/branches/release_32: ./ lib/Sema/TreeTransform.h test/SemaTemplate/instantiate-overload-candidates.cpp

[Pawel Wodnicki]

On 11/28/2012 10:41 PM, Douglas Gregor wrote:
> 
> On Nov 28, 2012, at 8:08 PM, Pawel Wodnicki <pawel at 32bitmicro.com> wrote:
> 
>> Takumi,
>>
>>>> Modified: cfe/branches/release_32/test/SemaTemplate/instantiate-overload-candidates.cpp
>>>> URL: http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project/cfe/branches/release_32/test/SemaTemplate/instantiate-overload-candidates.cpp?rev=168830&r1=168829&r2=168830&view=diff
>>>> ==============================================================================
>>>> --- cfe/branches/release_32/test/SemaTemplate/instantiate-overload-candidates.cpp (original)
>>>> +++ cfe/branches/release_32/test/SemaTemplate/instantiate-overload-candidates.cpp Wed Nov 28 17:44:46 2012
>>>> @@ -19,3 +19,34 @@
>>>> void test(int x) {
>>>>   f(&x, 0);
>>>> }
>>>> +
>>>> +// Ensure that we instantiate an overloaded function if it's selected by
>>>> +// overload resolution when initializing a function pointer.
>>>> +template<typename T> struct X {
>>>> +  static T f() { T::error; } // expected-error {{has no members}}
>>>> +  static T f(bool);
>>>> +};
>>>> +void (*p)() = &X<void>().f; // expected-note {{instantiation of}}
>>>
>>> It has been introduced in r167918 and causes failure in release_32.
>>>
>>
>> Yeah, I am was just looking at this.
>>
>>> http://bb.pgr.jp/builders/clang-3stage-x86_64-linux/builds/74
>>> --
>>> error: 'error' diagnostics expected but not seen:
>>>  Line 26: has no members
>>> error: 'note' diagnostics expected but not seen:
>>>  Line 29: instantiation of
>>> 2 errors generated.
>>> --
>>>
>>> Pawel, I suggest you a couple of options;
>>>
>>> 1) Remove the extra test.
>>>
>>> 2) Apply Richard's r167918, too. Doug and Richard, how do you think?
>>
>> I think applying r167918 is the best way and I'll test it but let's wait
>> till Doug and Richard had a chance to look at this.
> 
> r167514 is small, looks good, and fixes a regression. Let's take it.
> 
> 	- Doug
> 
> 
Doug,
Did you have r167918 in mind rather then r167514 ?
Pawel