Endill added inline comments.
================
Comment at: clang/test/CXX/drs/dr3xx.cpp:1439
+
+namespace dr399 { // dr399: 11
+ // NB: reuse dr244 test
----------------
shafik wrote:
> Endill wrote:
> > Despite a couple of FIXME in CWG244 test (out of dozens of examples), it
> > claims full availability since Clang 11. I'd take a more conservative
> > approach, declaring partial support, but I think that declaring different
> > availability for the same test would bring unnecessary confusion. So I
> > followed CWG244 availability.
> >
> > Alternative is to demote CWG244 to partial, but I'm not sure we should go
> > back on our claims for CWG support that has been out for so long.
> I think the bugs are not awful, we should file bug reports if we don't
> already have them. Some of them seem like they should be not too bad to fix.
>
> CC @aaron.ballman to get a second opinion
If we are to file bug reports, I'm not sure what wording makes those examples
ill-formed. Is it [[ http://eel.is/c++draft/basic.lookup#qual.general-4.6 |
qual.general-4.6 ]]: `The type-name that is or contains Q shall refer to its
(original) lookup context (ignoring cv-qualification) under the interpretation
established by at least one (successful) lookup performed.`? I interpret it as
requiring names to the left and to the right of `~` to be found in the same
scope (lookup context; `namespace dr244` in our case). Could it actually mean
that they have to refer to the same type?
Repository:
rG LLVM Github Monorepo
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D147920/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D147920
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
