aaron.ballman added inline comments.
================
Comment at: test/CXX/over/over.match/over.match.funcs/p4-0x.cpp:22-24
+ void lvalue() &; // expected-note 2 {{'lvalue' declared here}}
+ void const_lvalue() const&;
+ void rvalue() &&; // expected-note {{'rvalue' declared here}}
----------------
jtbandes wrote:
> aaron.ballman wrote:
> > Can you add examples that cover the other diagnostic wordings as well
> > (volatile, restrict, combinations, etc)?
> I've been working on this, but I actually can't trigger the `restrict`
> variants. Do you know whether this is something that's expected to work? The
> implicit object param doesn't seem to retain its restrict-ness (full
> disclosure, I have almost no prior experience with `restrict`...):
>
> ```
> void c() const;
> void v() volatile;
> void r() __restrict__;
> void cr() const __restrict__;
> void cv() const volatile;
> void vr() volatile __restrict__;
> void cvr() const volatile __restrict__;
> ```
> ```
> void test_diagnostics(const volatile X0 &__restrict__ cvr) {
> cvr.g(); // expected-error {{not marked const, volatile, or restrict}} --
> actually produces "not marked const or volatile"
> cvr.c(); // expected-error {{not marked volatile or restrict}} -- actually
> produces "not marked volatile"
> cvr.v(); // expected-error {{not marked const or restrict}} -- actually
> produces "not marked const"
> cvr.r(); // expected-error {{not marked const or volatile}}
> cvr.cr(); // expected-error {{not marked volatile}}
> cvr.cv(); // expected-error {{not marked restrict}} -- actually produces
> no error
> cvr.vr(); // expected-error {{not marked const}}
> cvr.cvr();
> }
> ```
Given that `restrict` is a Cism, it's entirely possible that it's not really
supported as a member function qualifier. In that case, one more test for
`const volatile` should be sufficient.
https://reviews.llvm.org/D39937
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
