Standard conversion sequences now have a CopyConstructor field, to

cope with the case where a user-defined conversion is actually a copy
construction, and therefore can be compared against other standard
conversion sequences. While I called this a hack before, now I'm
convinced that it's the right way to go.

Compare overloads based on derived-to-base conversions that invoke
copy constructors. 

Suppress user-defined conversions when attempting to call a
user-defined conversion.

llvm-svn: 58629

1 files changed, 2 insertions, 2 deletions

diff --git a/clang/test/SemaCXX/converting-constructor.cpp b/clang/test/SemaCXX/converting-constructor.cpp
index 4bcd5aa01ec..b99a134328e 100644
--- a/clang/test/SemaCXX/converting-constructor.cpp
+++ b/clang/test/SemaCXX/converting-constructor.cpp
@@ -1,4 +1,4 @@
-// RUN: clang -fsyntax-only %s 
+// RUN: clang -fsyntax-only -verify %s 
 class Z { };
 
 class Y { 
@@ -18,6 +18,6 @@ void g(short s, Y y, Z z) {
   f(s);
   f(1.0f);
   f(y);
-  f(z); // expected-error{{incompatible}}
+  f(z); // expected-error{{incompatible type passing 'class Z', expected 'class X'}}
 }