================
@@ -115,3 +116,39 @@ static_assert(!noexcept(typeid((Polymorphic<true,
false>&&) Polymorphic<true, fa
static_assert(!noexcept(typeid(*&(const Polymorphic<true, true>&)
Polymorphic<true, true>{})));
static_assert(!noexcept(typeid(*&(const Polymorphic<false, true>&)
Polymorphic<false, true>{})));
static_assert(!noexcept(typeid(*&(const Polymorphic<true, false>&)
Polymorphic<true, false>{})));
+
+template<bool B>
+struct X {
+ template<typename T> void f();
+};
+template<typename T>
+void f1() {
+ X<noexcept(typeid(*T{}))> dependent;
+ dependent.f<void>();
+ // expected-error@-1 {{use 'template' keyword to treat 'f' as a dependent
template name}}
----------------
Sirraide wrote:
Perhaps I’m just being a bit slow today, but it took me a few seconds to
realise that this is testing *whether* the `noexcept(...)` is correctly marked
as dependent here; imo that deserves a comment so whoever looks at this next
doesn’t end up as confused as I was just now
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/95846
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
