ogoffart added inline comments.
================
Comment at: lib/Sema/SemaDecl.cpp:5044-5045
@@ -5043,4 +5043,4 @@
// function template specialization, add it to the scope stack.
- if (New->getDeclName() && AddToScope &&
- !(D.isRedeclaration() && New->isInvalidDecl())) {
+ if (New->getDeclName() && AddToScope && !(D.isRedeclaration()
+ && New->isInvalidDecl() && !D.isFunctionDefinition())) {
// Only make a locally-scoped extern declaration visible if it is the first
----------------
rsmith wrote:
> Can we delete the invalid-decl check entirely here? If it's doing something
> important, we need to figure out what and make sure we preserve that intent
> if it's important, but either way it doesn't make a lot of sense to me for
> this to depend on whether the declaration has a definition.
I tried that, but then we have a failure in Sema/function-redecl.c and
Sema/predefined-function.c
int eli(float b); // expected-note {{previous declaration is here}} \
int foo() {
int eli(int (int)); // expected-error {{conflicting types for 'eli'}}
eli(b); // expected-error{{passing 'int (int)' to parameter of incompatible
type 'float'}}
return 0;
}
If we keep the invalid declaration, there would not be an error in the call to
eli(b)
But is that a behaviour we would change?
http://reviews.llvm.org/D19327
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
