On 11/15/2013 10:44 AM, Paolo Carlini wrote:
Anyway, for the time being, the problem filed in 29143 is only about
OVERLOADs, not about FUNCTION_DECLs, which are already fine, thus I'm
wondering if we could instead apply something like attached (+ a
comment). What do you think?
Makes sense.
Jas
Hi,
On 11/12/2013 04:51 PM, Jason Merrill wrote:
Please add a comment citing 13.3.1.1. OK with that change.
Thanks. The patch is still unapplied, because there are some
interactions with access control (and bugs we have got about access
control) which make me a bit nervous. For example for a
Please add a comment citing 13.3.1.1. OK with that change.
Jason
Hi,
in this very old issue we reject:
void f(int,int);
void f(int,int,int);
void g ()
{
(&f)(1,2,3);
}
with "address of overloaded function with no contextual type information".
It seems to me that handling the ADDR_EXPR close to the beginning of
finish_call_expr goes a long way toward f
