On Mon, Sep 30, 2019 at 6:54 AM Paolo Carlini <paolo.carl...@oracle.com> wrote:
>
> On 28/09/19 04:05, Jason Merrill wrote:
> > On 9/26/19 3:39 PM, Paolo Carlini wrote:
> >> +template void foo<int>( // { dg-error "15:template-id .foo<int>.
> >> used as a declarator" }
> >
> > That's a strange diagnostic message; there's nothing wrong with using
> > a template-id as a declarator. Why are we even calling grokdeclarator
> > when we hit EOF in the middle of the declarator?
>
> It's indeed a weird situation. Note, by the way, that for
>
> template void foo<int>;
>
> we end up giving the same diagnostic, only, the location was already fine.
>
> Anyway, to explain why I say weird, clang believes it's dealing with an
> explicit instantiation:
>
> explicit instantiation of 'foo' does not refer to a function template,
> variable template, member function, member class, or static data member
>
> whereas EDG gives:
>
> declaration is incompatible with function template "void foo<<unnamed>>()"
>
> I *think* what we are issuing is closer in spirit to the latter, we
> don't get fooled into thinking it's an instantiation and we say that as
> a declaration doesn't work either. See what I mean?
Well, it is an explicit instantiation, the problem (as EDG says) is
that the instantiation declaration doesn't match the template.
> Removing completely
> the diagnostic code doesn't seem fine either because we end up with very
> confusing wordings like
>
> variable or field declared void
>
> or worse we mention variable templates, depending on the type (I already
> mentioned this).
Any thought about my question about why we're calling grokdeclarator
in the first place?
> Thus, all in all, would it make sense to simply issue something closer
> to EDG?
Probably.
Jason
