1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
|
// RUN: %clang_cc1 -verify %s -std=c++11
template<typename T> struct A {
template<typename U> struct B;
template<typename U> using C = U; // expected-note {{here}}
};
struct X {
template<typename T> X(T);
struct Y {
template<typename T> Y(T);
};
};
template<typename T> A // expected-error {{missing 'typename' prior to dependent type template name 'A<T>::B'}}
<T>::B<T> f1();
template<typename T> A<T>::C<T> f2(); // expected-error {{missing 'typename' prior to dependent type template name 'A<T>::C'}}
// FIXME: Should these cases really be valid? There doesn't appear to be a rule prohibiting them...
template<typename T> A<T>::C<X>::X(T) {}
template<typename T> A<T>::C<X>::X::Y::Y(T) {}
// FIXME: This is ill-formed
template<typename T> int A<T>::B<T>::*f3() {}
template<typename T> int A<T>::C<X>::*f4() {}
// FIXME: This is valid
template<typename T> int A<T>::template C<int>::*f5() {} // expected-error {{has no members}}
template<typename T> template<typename U> struct A<T>::B {
friend A<T>::C<T> f6(); // ok, same as 'friend T f6();'
// FIXME: Error recovery here is awful; we decide that the template-id names
// a type, and then complain about the rest of the tokens, and then complain
// that we didn't get a function declaration.
friend A<U>::C<T> f7(); // expected-error {{use 'template' keyword to treat 'C' as a dependent template name}} expected-error 3{{}}
friend A<U>::template C<T> f8(); // expected-error 4{{}}
};
|
