On Sat, Jun 8, 2013 at 1:14 AM, David Majnemer <[email protected]> wrote: > On Fri, Jun 7, 2013 at 10:12 PM, Richard Smith <[email protected]> > 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 <[email protected]> >> 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 >> > <[email protected]> >> > 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 >> > >> > > > _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
