================
@@ -10615,6 +10615,40 @@ bool clang::isBetterOverloadCandidate(
auto *Guide1 = dyn_cast_or_null<CXXDeductionGuideDecl>(Cand1.Function);
auto *Guide2 = dyn_cast_or_null<CXXDeductionGuideDecl>(Cand2.Function);
if (Guide1 && Guide2) {
+ // -- F1 and F2 are generated from class template argument deduction
+ // for a class D, and F2 is generated from inheriting constructors
+ // from a base class of D while F1 is not, ...
+ bool G1Inherited = Guide1->getSourceDeductionGuide() &&
+ Guide1->getSourceDeductionGuideKind() ==
+ CXXDeductionGuideDecl::SourceDeductionGuideKind::
+ InheritedConstructor;
+ bool G2Inherited = Guide2->getSourceDeductionGuide() &&
+ Guide2->getSourceDeductionGuideKind() ==
+ CXXDeductionGuideDecl::SourceDeductionGuideKind::
+ InheritedConstructor;
+ if (Guide1->isImplicit() && Guide2->isImplicit() &&
+ G1Inherited != G2Inherited) {
+ const FunctionProtoType *FPT1 =
+ Guide1->getType()->getAs<FunctionProtoType>();
+ const FunctionProtoType *FPT2 =
+ Guide2->getType()->getAs<FunctionProtoType>();
+ assert(FPT1 && FPT2);
+
+ // ... and for each explicit function argument, the parameters of F1
and
+ // F2 are either both ellipses or have the same type
+ if (FPT1->isVariadic() == FPT2->isVariadic() &&
+ FPT1->getNumParams() == FPT2->getNumParams()) {
----------------
erichkeane wrote:
Is there a reason we can't just check the types of the functions here instead?
I would assume their prototypes to compare equal. That said, the wording of
`parameters are both ellipses or have the same type` seems intentionally
designed for the purpose of excluding the return type (or, perhaps reference/cv
specifiers?)?
If so, I think I'd rather a variant of `hasSameType` that for something like,
`hasSameParameterList`. At that point, we could have IT check for similar
variadics as well. We probably want to make sure that `(int, ...)` works too.
Also, I don't think the initial check is right? Shouldn't that be an 'or'
there instead of '&&'? If both are `NumParams == 0 && isVariadic`, then we
want to hit this condition as well.
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/98788
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
