Revert r88718, which does NOT solve the constructor-template-as-copy-constructor issue. Big thanks to John for finding this

llvm-svn: 88724

1 files changed, 8 insertions, 8 deletions

diff --git a/clang/lib/AST/DeclCXX.cpp b/clang/lib/AST/DeclCXX.cpp
index 69a577f1e70..e325a25c762 100644
--- a/clang/lib/AST/DeclCXX.cpp
+++ b/clang/lib/AST/DeclCXX.cpp
@@ -707,23 +707,23 @@ CXXConstructorDecl::isCopyConstructor(ASTContext &Context,
   //   if its first parameter is of type X&, const X&, volatile X& or
   //   const volatile X&, and either there are no other parameters
   //   or else all other parameters have default arguments (8.3.6).
-  //
-  // Note that we also test cv 'X' as a copy constructor, even though it is
-  // ill-formed, because this helps enforce C++ [class.copy]p3.
   if ((getNumParams() < 1) ||
       (getNumParams() > 1 && !getParamDecl(1)->hasDefaultArg()) ||
+      (getPrimaryTemplate() != 0) ||
       (getDescribedFunctionTemplate() != 0))
     return false;
 
   const ParmVarDecl *Param = getParamDecl(0);
 
   // Do we have a reference type? Rvalue references don't count.
-  CanQualType PointeeType = Context.getCanonicalType(Param->getType());
-  if (CanQual<LValueReferenceType> ParamRefType =
-                                     PointeeType->getAs<LValueReferenceType>())
-    PointeeType = ParamRefType->getPointeeType();
+  const LValueReferenceType *ParamRefType =
+    Param->getType()->getAs<LValueReferenceType>();
+  if (!ParamRefType)
+    return false;
 
-  // Do we have our class type?
+  // Is it a reference to our class type?
+  CanQualType PointeeType
+    = Context.getCanonicalType(ParamRefType->getPointeeType());
   CanQualType ClassTy 
     = Context.getCanonicalType(Context.getTagDeclType(getParent()));
   if (PointeeType.getUnqualifiedType() != ClassTy)