Hi,
On 05/07/2013 06:49 PM, Jason Merrill wrote:
On 05/07/2013 06:24 AM, Paolo Carlini wrote:
I'm not sure if it would be more correct to explicitly
cp_parser_abort_tentative_parse before returning
Well, there needs to be something to match the
cp_parser_parse_tentatively before this function returns. But in this
case the code is indeed an enum-specifier, so I think it would be
better to parse it as one rather than return early.
I understand. What about the below? Additionally to the error message
about the number of template arguments we emit a:
51226.C:6:31: error: expected unqualified-id at end of input
template<> enum A<>::E : int {}
which probably is expected in such cases (fwiw, clang also emits it)
Thanks,
Paolo.
///////////////////
Index: cp/parser.c
===================================================================
--- cp/parser.c (revision 198676)
+++ cp/parser.c (working copy)
@@ -14856,6 +14856,8 @@ cp_parser_enum_specifier (cp_parser* parser)
type = NULL_TREE;
}
}
+ else if (nested_name_specifier == error_mark_node)
+ /* We already issued an error. */;
else
error_at (type_start_token->location,
"%qD is not an enumerator-name", identifier);
@@ -14965,7 +14967,8 @@ cp_parser_enum_specifier (cp_parser* parser)
if (cp_lexer_next_token_is (parser->lexer, CPP_OPEN_BRACE))
{
timevar_push (TV_PARSE_ENUM);
- if (nested_name_specifier)
+ if (nested_name_specifier
+ && nested_name_specifier != error_mark_node)
{
/* The following catches invalid code such as:
enum class S<int>::E { A, B, C }; */
Index: testsuite/g++.dg/cpp0x/pr51226.C
===================================================================
--- testsuite/g++.dg/cpp0x/pr51226.C (revision 0)
+++ testsuite/g++.dg/cpp0x/pr51226.C (working copy)
@@ -0,0 +1,9 @@
+// PR c++/51226
+// { dg-do compile { target c++11 } }
+
+template<int> struct A // { dg-error "provided" }
+{
+ enum E : int;
+};
+
+template<> enum A<>::E : int {} // { dg-error "wrong number|expected" }
