royjacobson added a comment. In D133659#3824472 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D133659#3824472>, @aaron.ballman wrote:
> Double-checking my understanding of the overload resolution changes: we added > a new conversion sequence, but we don't expect that conversion sequence to > cause a change in overload resolution in practice? (I'm wondering if there's > test coverage we should be adding for those changes.) Yeah. The change only allow previously ambiguous calls to now not be ambiguous. Add to that that static and non-static methods can't overload each other, and the fact that GCC have applied this retroactively as well, I think it's pretty safe to just use the usual regression tests. (https://gcc.gnu.org/git/?p=gcc.git;a=commit;h=303976a6076f2839354702fd2caa049fa7cbbdc2) Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D133659/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D133659 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
