http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42356
Manuel López-Ibáñez <manu at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed| |2011-10-22
CC| |manu at gcc dot gnu.org
Ever Confirmed|0 |1
--- Comment #7 from Manuel López-Ibáñez <manu at gcc dot gnu.org> 2011-10-22
12:27:11 UTC ---
Clang prints:
/tmp/webcompile/_26276_0.cc:17:19: error: no matching member function for call
to 'newNode'
bar* b = f.newNode<bar>();
~~^~~~~~~~~~~~
/tmp/webcompile/_26276_0.cc:6:13: note: candidate function template not viable:
requires 1 argument, but 0 were provided
T* newNode(U u) { return newNode()->init(u); }
^
/tmp/webcompile/_26276_0.cc:6:13: note: candidate function template not viable:
requires 1 argument, but 0 were provided
/tmp/webcompile/_26276_0.cc:8:13: note: candidate function template not viable:
requires 2 arguments, but 0 were provided
T* newNode(U u, V v) { return newNode()->init(u, v); }
^
/tmp/webcompile/_26276_0.cc:8:13: note: candidate function template not viable:
requires 2 arguments, but 0 were provided
which is nicer except for the duplicated messages.
The first thing that should go away is the "expected primary-expression" stuff.
