Revert the fix for PR8013.

That bug concerned the well-formedness of code such as (&ovl)(a, b,
c). GCC rejects the code, while EDG accepts it. On further study of the
standard, I see no support for EDG's position: in particular, C++
[over.over] does not list this as a context where we can take the
address of an overloaded function, C++ [over.call.func] does not
reference the address-of operator at any point, and C++ [expr.call]
claims that the function argument in a call is either a function
lvalue or a pointer-to-function; (&ovl) is neither.

llvm-svn: 118620

1 files changed, 0 insertions, 4 deletions

diff --git a/clang/lib/Sema/SemaCodeComplete.cpp b/clang/lib/Sema/SemaCodeComplete.cpp
index 27943d5d3ff..73c19a755be 100644
--- a/clang/lib/Sema/SemaCodeComplete.cpp
+++ b/clang/lib/Sema/SemaCodeComplete.cpp
@@ -3306,10 +3306,6 @@ void Sema::CodeCompleteCall(Scope *S, ExprTy *FnIn,
   llvm::SmallVector<ResultCandidate, 8> Results;
 
   Expr *NakedFn = Fn->IgnoreParenCasts();
-  if (UnaryOperator *UnOp = dyn_cast<UnaryOperator>(NakedFn))
-    if (UnOp->getOpcode() == UO_AddrOf)
-      NakedFn = UnOp->getSubExpr()->IgnoreParens();
-
   if (UnresolvedLookupExpr *ULE = dyn_cast<UnresolvedLookupExpr>(NakedFn))
     AddOverloadedCallCandidates(ULE, Args, NumArgs, CandidateSet,
                                 /*PartialOverloading=*/ true);