efriedma added inline comments.
================
Comment at: lib/Parse/ParseStmt.cpp:186
// found.
- if (Next.isNot(tok::coloncolon)) {
+ if (Next.isNot(tok::coloncolon) && (!getLangOpts().MSVCCompat ||
+ Next.isNot(tok::less))) {
----------------
erichkeane wrote:
> Clang-tidy created this layout here that I'm not thrilled with, if OK, I'd
> like to move the entirety of the 2nd component to the "&&" on its own line.
> Additionally, if anyone has a better way to do this logic, I'm all ears!
Why is this checking for MSVCCompat? I think we want to detect constructs like
your testcase in all modes so we can generate a good error message.
================
Comment at: test/SemaCXX/MicrosoftCompatibility.cpp:222
+ const A<T>::TYPE var2 = 2; // expected-warning {{missing 'typename' prior
to dependent type name}}
+ A<T>::TYPE var3 = 2; // expected-warning {{missing 'typename' prior to
dependent type name}}
+ MissingTypename::A<T>::TYPE var4 = 2; // expected-warning {{missing
'typename' prior to dependent type name}}
----------------
erichkeane wrote:
> This is the line that previously failed. Curiously, the one above and below
> seemed to succeed without this change.
The first one is obviously a declaration because of the "const" keyword, so we
don't follow the same codepath. I would guess the last one hits the
"Next.isNot(tok::coloncolon)" check in the if statment you're modifying.
A couple more related testcases:
```
A<T>::TYPE const var3 = 2; // const after type
A<T>::TYPE *var3 = 2; // we can't tell this is invalid until the template is
instantiated
```
https://reviews.llvm.org/D29401
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
