================
@@ -406,39 +406,41 @@ namespace PR42362 {
namespace QualConv {
int *X;
template<const int *const *P> void f() {
- using T = decltype(P);
- using T = const int* const*;
+ using T = decltype(P); // expected-note {{previous definition}}
+ using T = const int* const*; // expected-error {{redefinition with
different types ('const int *const *' vs 'decltype(P)' (aka 'const int *const
*'))}}
}
template void f<&X>();
template<const int *const &R> void g() {
- using T = decltype(R);
- using T = const int *const &;
+ using T = decltype(R); // expected-note {{previous definition}}
+ using T = const int *const &; // expected-error {{redefinition with
different types ('const int *const &' vs 'decltype(R)' (aka 'const int *const
&'))}}
}
template void g<(const int *const&)X>();
}
namespace FunctionConversion {
struct a { void c(char *) noexcept; };
template<void (a::*f)(char*)> void g() {
- using T = decltype(f);
+ using T = decltype(f); // expected-note {{previous definition}}
using T = void (a::*)(char*); // (not 'noexcept')
+ // expected-error@-1 {{redefinition with different types ('void
(a::*)(char *)' vs 'decltype(f)' (aka 'void (a::*)(char *)'))}}
}
template void g<&a::c>();
void c() noexcept;
template<void (*p)()> void h() {
- using T = decltype(p);
+ using T = decltype(p);// expected-note {{previous definition}}
using T = void (*)(); // (not 'noexcept')
+ // expected-error@-1 {{redefinition with different types ('void (*)()' vs
'decltype(p)' (aka 'void (*)()'))}}
}
template void h<&c>();
}
namespace VoidPtr {
// Note, this is an extension in C++17 but valid in C++20.
template<void *P> void f() {
- using T = decltype(P);
- using T = void*;
+ using T = decltype(P); // expected-note {{previous definition}}
+ using T = void*; // expected-error {{redefinition with different
types ('void *' vs 'decltype(P)' (aka 'void *'))}}
----------------
AaronBallman wrote:
I'm aware of this being preexisting, but that's why I'm pushing back -- that's
been the reason to not address the issue previously. We cannot keep kicking the
can down the road on this because the diagnostic behavior is too unreasonable.
No other implementation implements these DRs, so there's not really anything on
fire justifying why we need to land this in a state where the diagnostics are
incomprehensible to users.
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/190495
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
