[cfe-dev] clang and gcc implement __PRETTY_FUNCTION__ differently

[Nikola Smiljanic]

You're right, the example was stupid. I'm just trying to understand what
unused template actually means and more importantly how to check if it's
used or not?

On Sun, Dec 18, 2011 at 5:44 PM, Joerg Sonnenberger <joerg at britannica.bec.de
> wrote:

> On Sun, Dec 18, 2011 at 05:01:54PM +0100, Nikola Smiljanic wrote:
> > But what about
> >
> > template<class T>
> > const char *foo() {
> >   T t();
> >   std::cout << t;
> >
> >   return __PRETTY_FUNCTION__;
> > }
>
> That's not valid, is it? E.g. the function doesn't result in
> non-conflicting specialisations, does it?
>
> Joerg
> _______________________________________________
> cfe-dev mailing list
> cfe-dev at cs.uiuc.edu
> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-dev
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/cfe-dev/attachments/20111218/b769fa6f/attachment.html>