Thank you for feedback!
================
Comment at: include/clang/Basic/DiagnosticParseKinds.td:342-343
@@ -341,1 +341,4 @@
"unexpected ':' in nested name specifier; did you mean '::'?">;
+def err_unexected_token_in_nested_name_spec : Error<
+ "unexpected '%0' in nested name specifier; did you mean ':'?">;
+def err_nested_name_spec_is_not_class : Error<
----------------
Richard Smith wrote:
> Either the second thing here should be `%1` (and you pass in `tok::colon`),
> or this diagnostic should have a better name. `"did you mean ':'?"` is not an
> obvious thing to say about a nested name specifier =)
>
> Also, using `%1` will let you merge this with the previous diagnostic.
>
> While you're here, please change `unexected` to `unexpected` in both
> diagnostic names. :)
Yes, I see. Tried to make more descriptive message.
Also changed typos in diagnostic names :)
================
Comment at: lib/Parse/ParseExprCXX.cpp:470-483
@@ -452,1 +469,16 @@
+ ObjectType, EnteringContext, SS,
+ ErrMode, &IdDecl)) {
+ // Identifier is not recognized as a nested name, but we can have
+ // mistyped '::' instead of ':'.
+ if (ColonIsSacred && IdDecl) {
+ Diag(CCLoc, diag::err_nested_name_spec_is_not_class)
+ << &II << getLangOpts().CPlusPlus
+ << FixItHint::CreateReplacement(CCLoc, ":");
+ Diag(IdDecl->getLocation(), diag::note_declared_at);
+ ColonColon.setKind(tok::colon);
+ PP.EnterToken(Tok);
+ PP.EnterToken(ColonColon);
+ Tok = Identifier;
+ break;
+ }
SS.SetInvalid(SourceRange(IdLoc, CCLoc));
----------------
Richard Smith wrote:
> I think it'd be cleaner to pass a `bool *CorrectToColon` into
> `ActOnCXXNestedNameSpecifier`, and issue the diagnostics there (so this
> diagnostic is not split into two disparate places). Then, if the flag is set,
> just fix up the token stream here.
This is good approach. Looks like patch becomes more compact.
================
Comment at: lib/Sema/SemaCXXScopeSpec.cpp:521
@@ +520,3 @@
+ << &Identifier << getLangOpts().CPlusPlus;
+ if (NamedDecl *ND = R.getAsSingle<NamedDecl>()) {
+ if (RecoveryMode == ReportAll)
----------------
Richard Smith wrote:
> This will silently ignore the error if you're in `DontReportWrongMember` mode
> and name lookup finds something other than a single result.
Remade this test.
http://llvm-reviews.chandlerc.com/D2870
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
