https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107178
Andrew Pinski <pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Keywords| |diagnostic
Severity|normal |enhancement
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski <pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
clang diagnostic is way worse in my mind. It does not even point to the : .
GCC is assuming if you don't have a constructor you have a type and that type
here would be T (S::)()
Take:
```
struct S {
int (*foo)() :
int t;
};
```
Trying to define a pointer to function field foo but used : instead of ;.
GCC diagonstic seems reasonable.
because GCC assumes you started to define a bitfield which is reasonable
assumention really.
clang diagnostic here is never even close to helpful.
At least GCC points out the colon and even suggest you started a bitfield which
is what a colon normally does here ....
