When overload resolution fails for an overloaded operator, show the
overload candidates (but not the built-in ones). We still rely on the
underlying built-in semantic analysis to produce the initial
diagnostic, then print the candidates following that diagnostic.
One side advantage of this approach is that we can perform more validation
of C++'s operator overloading with built-in candidates vs. the
semantic analysis for those built-in operators: when there are no
viable candidates, we know to expect an error from the built-in
operator handling code. Otherwise, we are not modeling the built-in
semantics properly within operator overloading. This is checked as:
assert(Result.isInvalid() &&
"C++ binary operator overloading is missing
candidates!");
if (Result.isInvalid())
PrintOverloadCandidates(CandidateSet, /*OnlyViable=*/false);
The assert() catches cases where we're wrong in a +Asserts build. The
"if" makes sure that, if this happens in a production clang
(-Asserts), we still build the proper built-in operator and continue
on our merry way. This is effectively what happened before this
change, but we've added the assert() to catch more flies.
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/cfe/trunk@83175 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
diff --git a/test/SemaCXX/overloaded-builtin-operators.cpp b/test/SemaCXX/overloaded-builtin-operators.cpp
index a8c94f1..0284b29 100644
--- a/test/SemaCXX/overloaded-builtin-operators.cpp
+++ b/test/SemaCXX/overloaded-builtin-operators.cpp
@@ -59,7 +59,7 @@
// FIXME: should pass (void)static_cast<no&>(islong(e1 % e2));
}
-struct ShortRef {
+struct ShortRef { // expected-note{{candidate function}}
operator short&();
};
@@ -67,7 +67,7 @@
operator volatile long&();
};
-struct XpmfRef {
+struct XpmfRef { // expected-note{{candidate function}}
operator pmf&();
};