llvm-capstone/clang/test/SemaCXX/converting-constructor.cpp
Richard Smith 2519554134 When diagnosing the lack of a viable conversion function, also list
explicit functions that are not candidates.

It's not always obvious that the reason a conversion was not possible is
because the function you wanted to call is 'explicit', so explicitly say
if that's the case.

It would be nice to rank the explicit candidates higher in the
diagnostic if an implicit conversion sequence exists for their
arguments, but unfortunately we can't determine that without potentially
triggering non-immediate-context errors that we're not permitted to
produce.
2020-01-09 15:15:02 -08:00

55 lines
1.1 KiB
C++

// RUN: %clang_cc1 -fsyntax-only -verify %s
// RUN: %clang_cc1 -fsyntax-only -verify -std=c++98 %s
// RUN: %clang_cc1 -fsyntax-only -verify -std=c++11 %s
class Z { };
class Y {
public:
Y(const Z&);
};
class X {
public:
X(int);
X(const Y&);
};
void f(X); // expected-note{{candidate function}}
void g(short s, Y y, Z z) {
f(s);
f(1.0f);
f(y);
f(z); // expected-error{{no matching function}}
}
class FromShort {
public:
FromShort(short s);
};
class FromShortExplicitly { // expected-note{{candidate constructor (the implicit copy constructor)}}
#if __cplusplus >= 201103L // C++11 or later
// expected-note@-2 {{candidate constructor (the implicit move constructor) not viable}}
#endif
public:
explicit FromShortExplicitly(short s); // expected-note {{explicit constructor is not a candidate}}
};
void explicit_constructor(short s) {
FromShort fs1(s);
FromShort fs2 = s;
FromShortExplicitly fse1(s);
FromShortExplicitly fse2 = s; // expected-error{{no viable conversion}}
}
// PR5519
struct X1 { X1(const char&); };
void x1(X1);
void y1() {
x1(1);
}