> On Feb 18, 2015, at 5:09 PM, Richard Smith <[email protected]> wrote: > > Makes sense to me. I'm not too unhappy about the class.qual p2 case; it's not > ideal, but the new diagnostic explains one way to fix the problem, which is > in some sense an improvement, and it only arises if the user makes several > errors all at once. A FIXME in the test would be nice, though.
Okay. > > Should we also diagnose the missing 'template' keyword? (I'd note that > http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/cwg_active.html#1710 > <http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/cwg_active.html#1710> removes > the need for that keyword here, but isn't fully baked yet). Yeah it’s probably better to not have the user recompile just to get the second error. > > More generally, should we rebuild the whole nested name specifier as a > dependent specifier, rather than just the last component? My goal was to match what was produced if you put in the typename and template keywords. I’m willing to admit I might have got it wrong - it’s been a while since I traced through it. I’ll take a look. Thanks for the review, Ben > > On Mon, Jan 26, 2015 at 9:08 AM, Ben Langmuir <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > This patch diagnoses a missing ‘typename’ keyword on nested template types > like A<T>::B<U>, to fix llvm.org/pr16909 <http://llvm.org/pr16909>. In > addition to fixing an accepts-invalid, in C++11 such types would cause > assertion failures and/or invalid LLVM IR when used with ‘auto’. > > I’m not 100% sure if the changes to > test/CXX/basic/basic.lookup/basic.lookup.qual/class.qual/p2.cpp are > desirable, or if we should suppress the missing ‘typename’ diagnostic when > we’re already recovering on X<T>::X<T>. I’m open to suggestions :-) > > Ben > > > >
_______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
