Rakete1111 marked 9 inline comments as done.
Rakete1111 added a comment.
I also found another diagnostic regression:
template <typename T>
T::type();
The previous error message was something with "nested name specifier does not
refer to class ...". Now, the T::type part is interpreted as type and so we get
a "expected unqualified-id" error message.
================
Comment at: include/clang/Parse/Parser.h:2119
DeclSpecContext DSC = DeclSpecContext::DSC_normal,
- LateParsedAttrList *LateAttrs = nullptr);
+ LateParsedAttrList *LateAttrs = nullptr) {
+ return ParseDeclarationSpecifiers(DS, TemplateInfo, AS, DSC, LateAttrs,
----------------
This overload is unnecessary; I accidentally included it. I'll change it later
so that Phab doesn't lose the review comments.
================
Comment at: include/clang/Parse/Parser.h:2054
+ case DeclSpecContext::DSC_template_param:
+ case DeclSpecContext::DSC_template_type_arg:
+ case DeclSpecContext::DSC_normal:
----------------
rsmith wrote:
> This doesn't seem right to me. Doesn't this mean that `X<T::U>` will change
> from being a non-type template argument to being a type template argument?
>
> Maybe that's a bug in the wording paper, though, since that context *is* a
> /type-id/.
AFAIK no it won't, but I can't really tell if that's the right behavior or not.
This patch doesn't touch the `X<T::U>` case.
================
Comment at: test/SemaCXX/unknown-type-name.cpp:121-122
template<typename T>
-A<T>::g() { } // expected-error{{requires a type specifier}}
+A<T>::g() { } // expected-error{{expected unqualified-id}}
+// expected-warning@-1{{implicit 'typename' is a C++2a extension}}
----------------
rsmith wrote:
> rsmith wrote:
> > This is a diagnostic quality regression. Perhaps that's an inevitable
> > consequence of P0634, but we should at least try to do better.
> This is marked "done" but doesn't seem to be done?
Oops, don't know why I did that. I can't figure out a way to fix this. I can
implement a basic heuristic to detect some very basic cases like this one, but
I don't think it's worth it.
Repository:
rC Clang
https://reviews.llvm.org/D53847
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
