rnk added a comment. In D69950#1770138 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D69950#1770138>, @mstorsjo wrote:
> This (when reapplied in > https://reviews.llvm.org/rG878a24ee244a24c39d1c57e9af2) broke compilation of > code that earlier built fine. A reduced example: > > namespace glslang { > class TPoolAllocator { > void operator=(TPoolAllocator); > }; > template <class> class a { > TPoolAllocator *b; > void c() { allocator = *b; } > TPoolAllocator allocator; > }; > } // namespace glslang > I fixed this particular code upstream: https://github.com/KhronosGroup/glslang/pull/2010 I am not enough an expert to be sure, but I suspect this is in the area of "invalid, no diagnostic required", where this code is invalid, but a conforming C++ implementation could either reject or accept it. Now we reject it, and that seems better in the long term, even though it creates a fire drill in the short term. =( Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D69950/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D69950 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
