about interaction between ADL and default arguments. Shrug shoulders, commit.
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/cfe/trunk@94524
91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-
96231b3b80d8
continue;
}
- // FIXME: using decls? canonical decls?
-
- FunctionDecl *Fn;
- if (!Operator || !(Fn = dyn_cast<FunctionDecl>(D)) ||
- IsAcceptableNonMemberOperatorCandidate(Fn, T1, T2, Context)) {
- if (isa<FunctionDecl>(D))
- Functions.insert(D);
- else if (isa<FunctionTemplateDecl>(D))
- Functions.insert(D);
- }
+ if (isa<UsingShadowDecl>(D))
+ D = cast<UsingShadowDecl>(D)->getTargetDecl();
+
+ // FIXME: canonical decls.
+ // See comment in AddArgumentDependentLookupCandidates().
+
+ if (isa<FunctionDecl>(D)) {
+ if (Operator &&
+ !IsAcceptableNonMemberOperatorCandidate(cast<FunctionDecl>(D),
+ T1, T2, Context))
+ continue;
+ Functions.insert(D);
+ } else if (isa<FunctionTemplateDecl>(D))
+ Functions.insert(D);
}
}
}
bool PartialOverloading) {
ADLFunctionSet Functions;
- // FIXME: Should we be trafficking in canonical function decls throughout?
-
+ // FIXME: This approach for uniquing ADL results (and removing
+ // redundant candidates from the set) relies on pointer-equality,
+ // which means we need to key off the canonical decl. However,
+ // always going back to the canonical decl might not get us the
+ // right set of default arguments. What default arguments are
+ // we supposed to consider on ADL candidates, anyway?
+
// FIXME: Pass in the explicit template arguments?
ArgumentDependentLookup(Name, Operator, Args, NumArgs, Functions);
g(f);
}
}
+
+// Make sure that ADL can find names brought in by using decls.
+namespace test0 {
+ namespace ns {
+ class Foo {};
+
+ namespace inner {
+ void foo(char *); // expected-note {{no known conversion}}
+ }
+
+ using inner::foo;
+ }
+
+ void test(ns::Foo *p) {
+ foo(*p); // expected-error {{no matching function for call to 'foo'}}
+ }
+}