rsmith added a comment.
Thanks! Is this really the only case we were getting wrong? If so, great!
We should make sure we have test coverage for all the cases affected by
P0692R1. Please add some complementary tests for the cases where diagnostics
should still be produced. For example, in addition to testing:
template<typename T, void (TestClass::*)()> class TemplateClass3 {};
template<typename T> class TemplateClass3<T, &TestClass::func> {};
... please also test ...
template<typename T> class TemplateClass3<T, &TestClass::func> varTemplate3{};
... which we should diagnose, because that's a primary variable template
definition, not a partial / explicit specialization or explicit instantiation.
Please also add testcases for specializations / instantiations of function
templates, variable templates, and for explicit specializations of members of
class templates:
template<typename T> struct X {
struct A {};
void f();
enum E : int;
static int var;
};
class Y { using Z = int; };
template<> struct X<Y::Z>::A {};
template<> void X<Y::Z>::f() {}
template<> enum X<Y::Z>::E : int {};
template<> int X<Y::Z>::var = 76;
(It looks like we incorrectly reject the function and variable cases here, and
presumably will still do so after this patch, so there's a little more work to
be done before we can call P0692R1 complete.)
Repository:
rG LLVM Github Monorepo
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D78404/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D78404
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
