Improve parsing and instantiation of destructor names, so that we can
now cope with the destruction of types named as dependent templates,
e.g.,
y->template Y<T>::~Y()
Nominally, we implement C++0x [basic.lookup.qual]p6. However, we don't
follow the letter of the standard here because that would fail to
parse
template<typename T, typename U>
X0<T, U>::~X0() { }
properly. The problem is captured in core issue 339, which gives some
(but not enough!) guidance. I expect to revisit this code when the
resolution of 339 is clear, and/or we start capturing better source
information for DeclarationNames.
Fixes PR6152.
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/cfe/trunk@96367 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
diff --git a/test/SemaCXX/destructor.cpp b/test/SemaCXX/destructor.cpp
index 6837cd4..a0c2c1e 100644
--- a/test/SemaCXX/destructor.cpp
+++ b/test/SemaCXX/destructor.cpp
@@ -40,9 +40,9 @@
~F(); // expected-error {{destructor cannot be redeclared}}
};
-~; // expected-error {{expected the class name after '~' to name a destructor}}
+~; // expected-error {{expected a class name after '~' to name a destructor}}
~undef(); // expected-error {{expected the class name after '~' to name a destructor}}
-~operator+(int, int); // expected-error {{expected the class name after '~' to name a destructor}}
+~operator+(int, int); // expected-error {{expected a class name after '~' to name a destructor}}
~F(){} // expected-error {{destructor must be a non-static member function}}
struct G {