1023668bc2
It turns out that nullptr pointers to data members act differently in function templates vs class templates. Class templates use a variable width representation proportional to the number of fields needed to materialize it. Function templates always use a single '0' template parameter. However, using '0' all the time is problematic if the class uses single or multiple inheritance. In those cases, use -1. llvm-svn: 241251
61 lines
1.3 KiB
C++
61 lines
1.3 KiB
C++
// RUN: %clang_cc1 -Wno-microsoft -fms-extensions -fno-rtti -std=c++11 -emit-llvm %s -o - -triple=i386-pc-win32 | FileCheck %s
|
|
|
|
template <typename T, int (T::*)() = nullptr>
|
|
struct J {};
|
|
|
|
template <typename T, int T::* = nullptr>
|
|
struct K {};
|
|
|
|
struct __single_inheritance M;
|
|
J<M> m;
|
|
// CHECK-DAG: @"\01?m@@3U?$J@UM@@$0A@@@A"
|
|
|
|
K<M> m2;
|
|
// CHECK-DAG: @"\01?m2@@3U?$K@UM@@$0?0@@A"
|
|
|
|
struct __multiple_inheritance N;
|
|
J<N> n;
|
|
// CHECK-DAG: @"\01?n@@3U?$J@UN@@$HA@@@A"
|
|
|
|
K<N> n2;
|
|
// CHECK-DAG: @"\01?n2@@3U?$K@UN@@$0?0@@A"
|
|
|
|
struct __virtual_inheritance O;
|
|
J<O> o;
|
|
// CHECK-DAG: @"\01?o@@3U?$J@UO@@$IA@A@@@A"
|
|
|
|
K<O> o2;
|
|
// CHECK-DAG: @"\01?o2@@3U?$K@UO@@$FA@?0@@A"
|
|
|
|
struct P;
|
|
J<P> p;
|
|
// CHECK-DAG: @"\01?p@@3U?$J@UP@@$JA@A@?0@@A"
|
|
|
|
K<P> p2;
|
|
// CHECK-DAG: @"\01?p2@@3U?$K@UP@@$GA@A@?0@@A"
|
|
|
|
#pragma pointers_to_members(full_generality, virtual_inheritance)
|
|
|
|
struct S {
|
|
int a, b;
|
|
void f();
|
|
virtual void g();
|
|
};
|
|
|
|
struct GeneralBase {
|
|
virtual void h();
|
|
};
|
|
struct MostGeneral : S, virtual GeneralBase {
|
|
virtual void h();
|
|
};
|
|
template <void (MostGeneral::*MP)()>
|
|
struct ClassTemplate {
|
|
ClassTemplate() {}
|
|
};
|
|
|
|
template struct ClassTemplate<&MostGeneral::h>;
|
|
|
|
// Test that we mangle in the vbptr offset, which is 12 here.
|
|
//
|
|
// CHECK: define weak_odr x86_thiscallcc %struct.ClassTemplate* @"\01??0?$ClassTemplate@$J??_9MostGeneral@@$BA@AEA@M@3@@QAE@XZ"
|