================
@@ -13,10 +15,41 @@ struct Bar {
struct Baz {
virtual ~Baz() {}
- static void operator delete[](void* ptr) = delete; // expected-note
{{explicitly marked deleted here}}
+ static void operator delete[](void* ptr) = delete; // expected-note
{{explicitly marked deleted here}}\
+ ms-note{{explicitly
marked deleted here}}}
+};
+
+struct BarBaz {
+ ~BarBaz() {}
+ static void operator delete[](void* ptr) = delete;
};
void foobar() {
- Baz *B = new Baz[10]();
+ Baz *B = new Baz[10](); // ms-error {{attempt to use a deleted function}}
delete [] B; // expected-error {{attempt to use a deleted function}}
+ BarBaz *BB = new BarBaz[10]();
+}
+
+struct BaseDelete1 {
+ void operator delete[](void *); //ms-note 2{{member found by ambiguous name
lookup}}
+};
+struct BaseDelete2 {
+ void operator delete[](void *); //ms-note 2{{member found by ambiguous name
lookup}}
+};
+struct BaseDestructor {
+ BaseDestructor() {}
+ virtual ~BaseDestructor() = default;
+};
+struct Final : BaseDelete1, BaseDelete2, BaseDestructor {
+ Final() {}
+};
+
+#ifdef MS
+struct Final1 : BaseDelete1, BaseDelete2, BaseDestructor {
+ __declspec(dllexport) ~Final1() {} // ms-error {{member 'operator delete[]'
found in multiple base classes of different types}}
+};
+#endif // MS
----------------
rnk wrote:
Maybe throw in a third case for good measure: an explicit, inline, non-exported
destructor, with ambiguous lookup. I'm guessing we want the same diagnostics we
get for `Final`, i.e. we emit the diagnostic only when array-new gets called,
as in the case with the implicit destructor.
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/135041
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
