vsapsai added inline comments.
================ Comment at: test/SemaCXX/overloaded-builtin-operators.cpp:95-99 // C++ [over.built]p3 long l1 = lr--; + // C++ [over.built]p4 + float f1 = fr--; ---------------- Looks like p3 for `lr--` is a typo because p3 is about `++` while p4 is about `--`. It means the existing test didn't catch this bug. Not sure that adding another positive test will reliably prevent a regression in the future. Currently `FloatRef` is the type to expose the bug because `FloatTy` is the first type in `ArithmeticTypes`. What if we add a negative test? I.e. something that would fail like ``` cannot decrement value of type 'BoolRef' ``` Also we can improve testing for p3 and test that `BoolRef` does support increment. Repository: rC Clang https://reviews.llvm.org/D44988 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
