Summary:
Given the following test program:
```
class C {
public:
int A(int a, int& b);
};
int C::A(const int a, int b) {
return a * b;
}
```
Clang would produce an error message that correctly diagnosed the
redeclaration of `C::A` to not match the original declaration (the
parameters to the two declarations do not match -- the original takes an
`int &` as its 2nd parameter, but the redeclaration takes an `int`). However,
it also produced a note diagnostic that inaccurately pointed to the
first parameter, claiming that `const int` in the redeclaration did not
match the unqualified `int` in the original. The diagnostic is
misleading because it has nothing to do with why the program does not
compile.
The logic for checking for a function overload, in
`Sema::FunctionParamTypesAreEqual`, discards cv-qualifiers before
checking whether the types are equal. Do the same when producing the
overload diagnostic.
Reviewers: rsmith
Reviewed By: rsmith
Subscribers: cpplearner, cfe-commits
Tags: #clang
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D57032
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/cfe/trunk@352831
91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-
96231b3b80d8
QualType DefParamTy = Definition->getParamDecl(Idx)->getType();
// The parameter types are identical
- if (Context.hasSameType(DefParamTy, DeclParamTy))
+ if (Context.hasSameUnqualifiedType(DefParamTy, DeclParamTy))
continue;
QualType DeclParamBaseTy = getCoreType(DeclParamTy);
}
void Foo::beEvil() {} // expected-error {{out-of-line definition of 'beEvil' does not match any declaration in namespace 'redecl_typo::Foo'; did you mean 'BeEvil'?}}
}
+
+struct CVQualFun {
+ void func(int a, int &b); // expected-note {{type of 2nd parameter of member declaration does not match definition ('int &' vs 'int')}}
+};
+
+void CVQualFun::func(const int a, int b) {} // expected-error {{out-of-line definition of 'func' does not match any declaration in 'CVQualFun'}}