================
@@ -171,3 +171,12 @@ namespace CtorTemplateBeatsNonTemplateConversionFn {
Foo f(Derived d) { return d; } // expected-error {{invokes a deleted
function}}
Foo g(Derived d) { return Foo(d); } // ok, calls constructor
}
+
+namespace GH65522 {
+template<typename A3>
+class B3 : A3 {
+ template<bool = C3<B3>()> // expected-warning 2{{use of function template
name with no prior declaration in function call with explicit}}
+ B3();
+}; B3(); // expected-error {{deduction guide declaration without trailing
return type}} \
+ // expected-note {{while building deduction guide here}}
----------------
zygoloid wrote:
Do we need an invalid deduction guide here to hit this problem? If I'm
understanding correctly, what's happening here is:
- The explicit deduction guide (that's not actually a deduction guide at all)
triggers generation of implicit deduction guides.
- Generating an implicit deduction guide produces a warning.
- The warning has the implicit deduction guide on the stack, hitting the
`unreachable`
If so, I think it would be clearer to write the test in a way that doesn't
produce an error:
```suggestion
};
constexpr bool C3(...) { return true; }
B3 b3; // expected-note {{while building deduction guide here}}
```
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/67373
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
