Endill added a comment.
I think I haven't stressed it enough, but this whole test is copied from dr244,
which is written by Richard.
================
Comment at: clang/test/CXX/drs/dr3xx.cpp:1492
+ // This is technically ill-formed; G is looked up in 'N::' and is not
found.
+ // Rejecting this seems correct, but most compilers accept, so we do also.
+ f.N::F::~G(); // expected-error {{qualified destructor name only found in
lexical scope; omit the qualifier to find this type name by unqualified lookup}}
----------------
shafik wrote:
> You say we accept the next line but it has an `expected-error` on it?
It's an error because of `-pedantic-errors`. It's a warning by default.
Repository:
rG LLVM Github Monorepo
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D147920/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D147920
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
