If we attempt to add a constructor template specialization that looks
like a copy constructor to the overload set, just ignore it. This
ensures that we don't try to use such a constructor as a copy
constructor *without* triggering diagnostics at the point of
declaration.
Note that we *do* diagnose such copy constructors when explicitly
written by the user (e.g., as an explicit specialization).
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/cfe/trunk@88733 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
diff --git a/test/SemaTemplate/constructor-template.cpp b/test/SemaTemplate/constructor-template.cpp
index 79bf7c5..12c6f8b 100644
--- a/test/SemaTemplate/constructor-template.cpp
+++ b/test/SemaTemplate/constructor-template.cpp
@@ -1,5 +1,4 @@
// RUN: clang-cc -fsyntax-only -verify %s
-
struct X0 { // expected-note{{candidate}}
X0(int); // expected-note{{candidate}}
template<typename T> X0(T);
@@ -52,3 +51,34 @@
template <> struct A<int>{A(const A<int>&);};
struct B { A<int> x; B(B& a) : x(a.x) {} };
+struct X2 {
+ X2();
+ X2(X2&);
+ template<typename T> X2(T);
+};
+
+X2 test(bool Cond, X2 x2) {
+ if (Cond)
+ return x2; // okay, uses copy constructor
+
+ return X2(); // expected-error{{incompatible type}}
+}
+
+struct X3 {
+ template<typename T> X3(T);
+};
+
+template<> X3::X3(X3); // expected-error{{must pass its first argument by reference}}
+
+struct X4 {
+ X4();
+ ~X4();
+ X4(X4&);
+ template<typename T> X4(const T&, int = 17);
+};
+
+X4 test_X4(bool Cond, X4 x4) {
+ X4 a(x4, 17); // okay, constructor template
+ X4 b(x4); // okay, copy constructor
+ return X4(); // expected-error{{incompatible type}}
+}