Also tidy up, simplify, and extend the test coverage to demonstrate the
limitations. This test should now fail if the bugs are fixed (&
hopefully whoever ends up in this situation sees the FIXMEs and realizes
that the test needs to be updated to positively test their change that
has fixed some or all of these issues).
I do wonder whether I could demonstrate breakage without a macro here,
but any way I slice it I can't think of a way to get two calls to the
same function on the same line/column in non-macro C++ - implicit
conversions happen at the same location as an explicit function, but
you'd never get an implicit conversion on the result of an explicit call
to the same implicit conversion operator (since the value is already
converted to the desired result)...
llvm-svn: 208468
9c8821bbef