rsmith added a comment.
Please also add some testcases for the corresponding case for a friend function
template:
template<typename T> void f();
template<typename> struct A {
template<typename T> void f() {}
};
template<typename> struct B {
template<typename T> void f() {}
};
A<int> a;
B<int> b; // ill-formed
================
Comment at: test/SemaCXX/PR25848.cpp:4
@@ +3,3 @@
+struct A;
+typedef int A::* P;
+
----------------
Maybe use `int` instead of a pointer to member type here? May as well keep the
parts that aren't relevant to the test as simple as possible.
================
Comment at: test/SemaCXX/friend2.cpp:77
@@ +76,3 @@
+// Even if clases are not instantiated and hence friend functions defined in
them are not
+// available, their declarations must be checked.
+
----------------
"must be" -> "can be" (or maybe "should be")
We're not required to diagnose this; it's a QoI issue.
http://reviews.llvm.org/D16989
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
