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

[Douglas Gregor]

On Nov 28, 2012, at 9:09 PM, Pawel Wodnicki <pawel at 32bitmicro.com> wrote:

> 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

Yes, sorry. Pasted the wrong revision number (but reviewed the right one!).

	- Doug