Sent from my iPhone
> On Oct 2, 2013, at 9:55 PM, Faisal Vali <[email protected]> wrote: > > > What's wrong with my approach of marking the specialization as a > specialization instead? It does not trigger any assertion violations and all > seems to work well? Oh! I didn't realize that solved the issue for you. Patch LGTM then! > > ================ > Comment at: lib/Sema/SemaTemplateInstantiate.cpp:953 > @@ +952,3 @@ > + // 'FunctionDecl::getTemplateInstantiationPattern()' > + NewCallOperatorTemplate->setMemberSpecialization(); > + } > ---------------- > But this seems to work and return the correct getTemplateInstantiationPattern > - that allows addInstantiatedParameters to work as expected? > > What's wrong with this approach? > > > http://llvm-reviews.chandlerc.com/D1784 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
