From b92caa5aa6f428ab1bf1a71bea5a35e15c309d8c Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: John McCall Date: Thu, 22 Jul 2010 22:44:38 +0000 Subject: [PATCH] Ted pointed out that this test case could be using access control instead of __attribute__((unavailable)). I've done so, but unfortunately there's still a case of redundant diagnostics. git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/cfe/trunk@109192 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8 --- test/SemaCXX/conversion-function.cpp | 11 +++++------ 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-) diff --git a/test/SemaCXX/conversion-function.cpp b/test/SemaCXX/conversion-function.cpp index 3e96d02495..d7d41a4031 100644 --- a/test/SemaCXX/conversion-function.cpp +++ b/test/SemaCXX/conversion-function.cpp @@ -97,9 +97,7 @@ void f(Yb& a) { class AutoPtrRef { }; class AutoPtr { - // FIXME: Using 'unavailable' since we do not have access control yet. - // FIXME: The error message isn't so good. - AutoPtr(AutoPtr &) __attribute__((unavailable)); // expected-note{{explicitly marked}} + AutoPtr(AutoPtr &); // expected-note{{declared private here}} public: AutoPtr(); @@ -115,7 +113,7 @@ AutoPtr test_auto_ptr(bool Cond) { AutoPtr p; if (Cond) - return p; // expected-error{{call to deleted constructor}} + return p; // expected-error{{calling a private constructor}} return AutoPtr(); } @@ -125,11 +123,12 @@ struct A1 { ~A1(); private: - A1(const A1&) __attribute__((unavailable)); // expected-note{{here}} + A1(const A1&); // expected-note 2 {{declared private here}} }; A1 f() { - return "Hello"; // expected-error{{invokes deleted constructor}} + // FIXME: redundant diagnostics! + return "Hello"; // expected-error {{calling a private constructor}} expected-warning {{an accessible copy constructor}} } namespace source_locations { -- 2.50.1