https://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=30400
Richard Smith <richard-l...@metafoo.co.uk> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC| |richard-l...@metafoo.co.uk
Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
--- Comment #1 from Richard Smith <richard-l...@metafoo.co.uk> ---
Note that Clang 3.9 implements
http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2015/p0136r1.html and the
other cited compilers do not.
Under p0136r1, inheriting a constructor works much more like inheriting any
other member function. Note that this is rejected by all referenced compilers:
struct R {
void f() noexcept;
};
struct S : R {
using R::f;
template<class = void>
void f();
};
static_assert(!noexcept(S{}.f()), "");
So, this is working correctly per the standard + current DRs. Whether or not
that *should* work is a separate question, but it seems sensible to me that the
behavior be the same for constructors and other member functions. (We could
certainly imagine changing the rules for using-declarations so that a function
from a derived class is considered better than one from a base class, before
the template/non-template tiebreaker.)
Resolving as a duplicate of PR30305, as this is another "Implementing p0136r1
changes meaning of existing code" issue.
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 30305 ***
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
_______________________________________________
llvm-bugs mailing list
llvm-bugs@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-bugs
