On 2014-07-26 17:14, Jason Merrill wrote:
On 07/26/2014 12:11 PM, Jason Merrill wrote:
On 07/26/2014 03:04 AM, Braden Obrzut wrote:
On 07/25/2014 05:24 PM, Jason Merrill wrote:
Fair enough, but in that case let's use 'sorry' rather then
'error' to
be clear that it's a missing feature.
Tests like g++.dg/cpp1y/pr59638.C produce extra failures if this is
changed. Is there something I'm supposed to do to account for
that?
Changing dg-error to dg-message should cover it.
Actually, we shouldn't be treating that testcase as declaring
variable templates at all. Adam, any thoughts?
In the 59638 case, the declarations
void (*a)(auto);
void (*b)(auto) = 0;
are shorthand for
template <typename T> void (*a)(T);
template <typename T> void (*b)(T) = 0;
which, unless there's some constraint with variable templates that I'm
not aware of, ought to define two variable templates 'a' and 'b' to be
ptr-to-function-taking-T. So I think it's correct that the variable
template stuff should be triggering here.
Prefixing the two decls with constexpr does allow them to compile
(albeit with an "uninitialized const 'a'" permerror in the first case).
The issue with 59638 was that the errors were not correctly unwinding
the template scope so declarations further down the file were considered
templates when the weren't.
There may be similar recovery issues with not supporting non-constexpr
variable templates defined with 'auto' (if that's permitted at all).
Cheers,
Adam
