================
@@ -12163,6 +12163,23 @@ bool Sema::CheckFunctionDeclaration(Scope *S,
FunctionDecl *NewFD,
}
}
+ // C++11 [dcl.constexpr]p1: An explicit specialization of a constexpr
+ // function can differ from the template declaration with respect to
+ // the constexpr specifier.
+ if (IsMemberSpecialization) {
+ FunctionDecl *InstantiationFunction =
+ OldDecl ? OldDecl->getAsFunction() : nullptr;
+ if (InstantiationFunction &&
+ InstantiationFunction->getTemplateSpecializationKind() ==
+ TSK_ImplicitInstantiation &&
+ (NewFD->getTemplateSpecializationKind() == TSK_ExplicitSpecialization
||
+ NewFD->getTemplateSpecializationKind() == TSK_Undeclared)) {
----------------
erichkeane wrote:
What is going on here? Why do you not need to handle
`TSK_ExplicitInstantiationDeclaration` and
`TSK_ExplicitInstantiationDefinition`? Can you play with examples a bit more
to see if/when those should be applied?
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/145272
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
