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

[NAKAMURA Takumi]

Pawel, I have confirmed. Thanks!

2012/11/30 Pawel Wodnicki <pawel at 32bitmicro.com>:
> On 11/28/2012 11:09 PM, Douglas Gregor wrote:
>>
>> 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!).
>
> r167918 - Committed revision 168888.
> And we have diagnostics back where they are
> expected.
>>
>>       - Doug
>>
>>
>>
>
> Pawel