rjmccall added inline comments.
================
Comment at: lib/Sema/SemaTemplate.cpp:7845
@@ -7842,1 +7844,3 @@
+ } else
+ NonTemplateMatch = Method;
}
----------------
hintonda wrote:
> rjmccall wrote:
> > Could you add an assertion here that NonTemplateMatch is still null? That
> > should definitely never trip.
> >
> > Hmm, actually, it might trip in invalid code; you should include a test
> > case like
> > template <class T, class U> class A { void foo(T) {} void foo(U) {} };
> > template void A<int, int>::foo(int);
> I'll add the new test, but we do check for null below, i.e., we assign
> NonTemplateMatch to the original Specialization pointer, and then check the
> matches. If we don't find one, we true on line 7883.
No, I mean an assertion that we're not re-assigning NonTemplateMatch, i.e. that
we didn't find two different non-template functions like this.
http://reviews.llvm.org/D17215
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
