On 03/10/2015 01:03 PM, Paolo Carlini wrote:
Good question, but we don't have this issue, because for that we emit
anyway:
65370.C:11:36: error: default argument specified in explicit
specialization [-fpermissive]
C::C(const C&, bool = false);
nothing changes about that kind of testcase, usua
OK.
Jason
Hi,
On 03/10/2015 07:10 PM, Jason Merrill wrote:
Ah. So here we can ignore any template instantiation or
specialization, with a comment that check_explicit_specialization will
handle them. But I suspect that checking the decl itself will be
better; I would expect checking the context to lead
... in any case, I can confirm that the below also passes testing. Not
sure if it makes sense to add the check also to the other call site,
can't figure out a testcase...
Thanks,
Paolo.
/
Index: cp/decl.c
===
--- c
Hi,
On 03/10/2015 05:19 PM, Jason Merrill wrote:
On 03/10/2015 11:50 AM, Paolo Carlini wrote:
+ /* Don't get fooled by, eg:
+
+ template class C
+ {
+ template
+ C(const C&, bool = false);
+ };
+
+ template <>
+ template
+ C::C(const C&, bool); */
+
+ i
On 03/10/2015 11:50 AM, Paolo Carlini wrote:
+ /* Don't get fooled by, eg:
+
+ template class C
+ {
+ template
+ C(const C&, bool = false);
+ };
+
+ template <>
+ template
+ C::C(const C&, bool); */
+
+ if (DECL_FUNCTION_MEMBER_P (decl)
+ && CLASSTYP
