On Wed, Apr 20, 2016 at 11:33:55AM -0400, Jason Merrill wrote:
> On 04/08/2016 07:51 AM, Marek Polacek wrote:
> >By the template part of this PR I mean that we ICE on
> >
> >template <typename T>
> >class D
> >{
> > enum D::A { foo } c;
> >};
> >
> >where clang++ says
> >error: template specialization or definition requires a template parameter
> >list
> > corresponding to the nested type 'D<T>'
> >which I guess means that a valid code would have "<T>" after "D".
>
> No, this is misleading; adding the template args wouldn't make the extra
> qualification valid. We should just give the extra qualification error in
> this case, too.
Oh, I see. In that case...
> It might help to move your added check to before we push_scope.
This wouldn't help: nested_name_specifier and prev_scope are both "struct D",
but prev_scope contains TYPE_FIELDS, so comparison with == wouldn't work. But
I wonder if we can't simply use same_type_p then, as in the below.
Bootstrapped/regtested on x86_64-linux, ok for trunk?
2016-04-20 Marek Polacek <pola...@redhat.com>
PR c/70513
* parser.c (cp_parser_enum_specifier): Check and possibly error for
extra qualification.
* g++.dg/cpp0x/forw_enum12.C: New test.
* g++.dg/cpp0x/forw_enum13.C: New test.
diff --git gcc/cp/parser.c gcc/cp/parser.c
index 0a1ed1a..e9d1995 100644
--- gcc/cp/parser.c
+++ gcc/cp/parser.c
@@ -17233,6 +17233,17 @@ cp_parser_enum_specifier (cp_parser* parser)
type, prev_scope, nested_name_specifier);
type = error_mark_node;
}
+ /* If that scope is the scope where the declaration is being placed
+ the program is invalid. */
+ else if (CLASS_TYPE_P (nested_name_specifier)
+ && CLASS_TYPE_P (prev_scope)
+ && same_type_p (nested_name_specifier, prev_scope))
+ {
+ permerror (type_start_token->location,
+ "extra qualification not allowed");
+ type = error_mark_node;
+ nested_name_specifier = NULL_TREE;
+ }
}
if (scoped_enum_p)
diff --git gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/cpp0x/forw_enum12.C
gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/cpp0x/forw_enum12.C
index e69de29..906ba68 100644
--- gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/cpp0x/forw_enum12.C
+++ gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/cpp0x/forw_enum12.C
@@ -0,0 +1,29 @@
+// PR c++/70513
+// { dg-do compile { target c++11 } }
+
+struct S1
+{
+ enum E : int;
+ enum S1::E : int { X } e; // { dg-error "extra qualification not allowed" }
+};
+
+struct S2
+{
+ enum class E : int;
+ enum class S2::E : int { X } e; // { dg-error "extra qualification not
allowed" }
+};
+
+struct S3
+{
+ enum struct E : int;
+ enum struct S3::E : int { X } e; // { dg-error "extra qualification not
allowed" }
+};
+
+struct S4
+{
+ struct S5
+ {
+ enum E : char;
+ enum S4::S5::E : char { X } e; // { dg-error "extra qualification not
allowed" }
+ };
+};
diff --git gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/cpp0x/forw_enum13.C
gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/cpp0x/forw_enum13.C
index e69de29..b8027f0 100644
--- gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/cpp0x/forw_enum13.C
+++ gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/cpp0x/forw_enum13.C
@@ -0,0 +1,47 @@
+// PR c++/70513
+// { dg-do compile { target c++11 } }
+
+template <typename T>
+class D1
+{
+ enum A : int;
+ enum D1::A : int { foo } c; // { dg-error "extra qualification not allowed" }
+};
+
+template <typename T>
+class D2
+{
+ enum A : int;
+ enum D2<T>::A : int { foo } c; // { dg-error "extra qualification not
allowed" }
+};
+
+template <typename T>
+class D3
+{
+ enum D3::A { foo } c; // { dg-error "extra qualification not allowed" }
+};
+
+template <typename T>
+class D4
+{
+ enum D4<T>::A { foo } c; // { dg-error "extra qualification not allowed" }
+};
+
+template <typename T>
+class D5
+{
+ class D6
+ {
+ enum D6::A { foo } c; // { dg-error "extra qualification not allowed" }
+ };
+};
+
+template <typename T>
+class D7
+{
+ class D8
+ {
+ enum A : int;
+ enum D8::A : int { foo } c; // { dg-error "extra qualification not
allowed" }
+ };
+};
Marek
