nwilson added inline comments.
================
Comment at: lib/Sema/SemaDecl.cpp:7837
@@ -7819,1 +7836,3 @@
+ NewFD->setInvalidDecl(true);
+ return NewFD;
}
----------------
Please let me know if there are thoughts about better error recovery here. I
did this because we don't have the specifier information when checking an
explicit specialization. So, we still diagnose for the explication
specialization (one of the checks in this patch), when `concept` is specified,
e.g.:
template<typename T> concept bool C() { return true; }
template <> concept bool C<int>() { return true; }
Would it be okay to pass `Declarator` to
Sema::CheckFunctionTemplateSpecialization?
http://reviews.llvm.org/D18221
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
