Folks,
is there any documentation that explains the differences, strengths,
advantages, etc., between the `LLVMgold.so' plugin for `ar' and
`liblto_plugin.so' from gcc?
On my openSuSE GNU/Linux box, a link to the former is installed by
default in `/usr/lib/bfd-plugins', while I have to create a
> Yes. The pieces are these:
>
> template
>// template-parameter-list
> void f
> (int N) // parameter-type-list
>
> Both base and derived function template have a parameter-type-list
> of (). :(
Thanks for the analysis. I now wonder whether there is a work-around
to make the code work wi
> The rule for determining when a base class function declaration
> introduced by a using-declaration is hidden by a derived class
> function declaration does not take the template parameter list into
> account: http://eel.is/c++draft/namespace.udecl#15.sentence-1
Our main lilypond developer disa
> Sure, that'd be great - http://bugs.llvm.org
Done:
https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=39581
Werner
___
cfe-users mailing list
cfe-users@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-users
> Yeah, looks like a bug in Clang to me - CC'ing Richard Smith in case
> this is quick/easy/obvious to him.
Thanks to all for checking! Shall I open an issue for clang?
Werner
___
cfe-users mailing list
cfe-users@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.
Folks,
below is a MWE that compiles fine with g++ but fails with clang
(tested version 6.0.1 on a GNU/Linux box):
clang-problem.cpp:19:7: error:
no matching member function for call to 'zip'
bex.zip <&B::fun> ();
^
clang-problem.cpp:13:8: note: candidate templa
