On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 3:51 PM, Richard Smith <[email protected]>wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 3:25 PM, David Majnemer > <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 12:00 PM, Richard Smith <[email protected]> > > wrote: > >> > >> 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? > > > > > > Neither my patch nor EDG allows decltype(&a.static_fn). > > Sorry, the case I meant was this one: > > struct A { template<typename T> static void f(); } a; > decltype(&a.f<int>) p; > Both my patch and EDG allow this. > > >> >> 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
