rsmith added a comment.

In https://reviews.llvm.org/D39679#1037591, @Rakete1111 wrote:

> Note: I didn't change `Args[0]` to `OnlyArg` in 
> `FK_AddressOfUnaddressableFunction`, because I'm pretty sure that C++ doesn't 
> have unaddressable functions and thus there is no need to decompose an 
> initializer list. Is this correct?


C++ with Clang extensions has unaddressable functions. This example asserts at 
the moment:

  void f() __attribute__((enable_if(false, "")));
  int f();
  void (&&p)() = {f};

... due, I think, to failing to unwrap the initializer list when diagnosing the 
initialization.


https://reviews.llvm.org/D39679



_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
  • [PATCH] D39679: [... Nicolas Lesser via Phabricator via cfe-commits
    • [PATCH] D396... Richard Smith - zygoloid via Phabricator via cfe-commits
    • [PATCH] D396... Richard Smith - zygoloid via Phabricator via cfe-commits
    • [PATCH] D396... Nicolas Lesser via Phabricator via cfe-commits
    • [PATCH] D396... Nicolas Lesser via Phabricator via cfe-commits
    • [PATCH] D396... Nicolas Lesser via Phabricator via cfe-commits

Reply via email to