- Group Reviewers
- rG51a07fc24cb9: [clang] Add test for CWG2396
You mention CWG2385 as na but you don't explain how it was resolved, was it superceded by p1787.
Also nitpick you mentioned P1787 in the description but it links to a phab review, you should probably just use a link like I did above to refer to papers. Same with the defect reports also like I did above. Folks may not know how to find defect reports and or papers.
CWG2385 points out to inconsistency in wording introduced by resolution of CWG1111, so I consider it a pure wording change. This issue, as well as aforementioned CWG1111, were resolved independently of P1787, hence I didn't provide any explanation for them.
I felt that it's going to worsen the readability of raw commit messages, but I can indeed use markdown links if it helps.
Move CWG2385 out to D142315, because it's been resolved prior to P1787, and it's easier to explain it there.
While gcc accepts the first three it does not like the last two: https://godbolt.org/z/js8Pz14Eo
I believe they should also be covered but not confident.
I agree they should. I can't find any special considerations in the standard regarding unqualified name lookup of template arguments.
Are there any action items for me here?
Yeah, can you file a gcc bug report for the last two? If they agree it is a gcc but then we are all good, if not then we need to see what they say.
Upon closer inspection, I think I'm wrong to put those two tests that GCC does not accept:
As I understand it now, identity is a component name of ptr-declarator and falls under "is looked up in the same fashion as the conversion-function-id in which it appears", but its argument B does not.