From 7566e4ad2cf1a03fccfe97a110ccf3f5e80f1988 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Douglas Gregor Date: Sun, 18 Apr 2010 02:16:12 +0000 Subject: Do not consider explicit constructors when performing a copy to a temporary object. This is blindingly obvious from reading C++ [over.match.ctor]p1, but somehow I'd missed it and it took DR152 to educate me. Adjust one test that was relying on this non-standard behavior. llvm-svn: 101688 --- clang/test/SemaCXX/copy-initialization.cpp | 13 ++++++++----- 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-) (limited to 'clang/test/SemaCXX/copy-initialization.cpp') diff --git a/clang/test/SemaCXX/copy-initialization.cpp b/clang/test/SemaCXX/copy-initialization.cpp index ea67e6ffe20..0c4aa964cb6 100644 --- a/clang/test/SemaCXX/copy-initialization.cpp +++ b/clang/test/SemaCXX/copy-initialization.cpp @@ -1,18 +1,21 @@ // RUN: %clang_cc1 -fsyntax-only -verify %s class X { public: - explicit X(const X&); - X(int*); // expected-note 2{{candidate constructor}} - explicit X(float*); + explicit X(const X&); // expected-note {{candidate constructor}} + X(int*); // expected-note 3{{candidate constructor}} + explicit X(float*); // expected-note {{candidate constructor}} }; class Y : public X { }; void f(Y y, int *ip, float *fp) { X x1 = y; // expected-error{{no matching constructor for initialization of 'X'}} - X x2 = 0; - X x3 = ip; + X x2 = 0; // expected-error{{no viable constructor copying variable}} + X x3 = ip; // expected-error{{no viable constructor copying variable}} X x4 = fp; // expected-error{{no viable conversion}} + X x2a(0); // expected-error{{call to constructor of 'X' is ambiguous}} + X x3a(ip); + X x4a(fp); } struct foo { -- cgit v1.2.3