A::f
that occurs within a non-static member function with a type-dependent
"this", don't consider this to be a case for introduction of an
implicit "(*this)." to refer to a specific member function unless we
know (at template definition time) that A is a base class of *this.
There is some disagreement here between GCC, EDG, and Clang about the
handling of this case. I believe that Clang now has the correct,
literal interpretation of the standard, but have asked for
clarification (c++std-core-15483).
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/cfe/trunk@89425
91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-
96231b3b80d8
// class. If not, this isn't an implicit member reference.
ThisType = MD->getThisType(Context);
- // If the type of "this" is dependent, we can't tell if the member is in a
- // base class or not, so treat this as a dependent implicit member reference.
- if (ThisType->isDependentType())
- return true;
-
QualType CtxType = Context.getTypeDeclType(cast<CXXRecordDecl>(Ctx));
QualType ClassType
= Context.getTypeDeclType(cast<CXXRecordDecl>(MD->getParent()));
struct X0Base {
int &f();
+ int& g(int);
+ static double &g(double);
};
template<typename T>
template<typename U>
struct X1 : X0<U> {
- int &f2() { return X0Base::f(); }
+ int &f2() {
+ return X0Base::f(); // expected-error{{call to non-static member function without an object argument}}
+ }
};
void test_X1(X1<int> x1i) {
int &ir = x1i.f2();
}
+
+template<typename U>
+struct X2 : X0Base, U {
+ int &f2() { return X0Base::f(); }
+};
+
+template<typename T>
+struct X3 {
+ void test(T x) {
+ double& d1 = X0Base::g(x);
+ }
+};
+
+
+template struct X3<double>;