PR17567: Improve diagnostic for a mistyped constructor name. If we see something
that looks like a function declaration, except that it's missing a return type,
try typo-correcting it to the relevant constructor name.
In passing, fix a bug where the missing-type-specifier recovery codepath would
drop a preceding scope specifier on the floor, leading to follow-on diagnostics
and incorrect recovery for the auto-in-c++98 hack.
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/cfe/trunk@192644 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
diff --git a/test/SemaCXX/nested-name-spec.cpp b/test/SemaCXX/nested-name-spec.cpp
index 855af93..df4f1b2 100644
--- a/test/SemaCXX/nested-name-spec.cpp
+++ b/test/SemaCXX/nested-name-spec.cpp
@@ -167,9 +167,7 @@
struct Y; // expected-note{{forward declaration of 'Y'}}
Y::foo y; // expected-error{{incomplete type 'Y' named in nested name specifier}}
-X::X() : a(5) { } // expected-error{{use of undeclared identifier 'X'}} \
- // expected-error{{C++ requires a type specifier for all declarations}} \
- // expected-error{{only constructors take base initializers}}
+X::X() : a(5) { } // expected-error{{use of undeclared identifier 'X'}}
struct foo_S {
static bool value;