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/invalid-member-expr.cpp b/test/SemaCXX/invalid-member-expr.cpp
index 666595c..7b17afb 100644
--- a/test/SemaCXX/invalid-member-expr.cpp
+++ b/test/SemaCXX/invalid-member-expr.cpp
@@ -6,7 +6,7 @@
X x;
x.int; // expected-error{{expected unqualified-id}}
- x.~int(); // expected-error{{expected the class name}}
+ x.~int(); // expected-error{{expected a class name}}
x.operator; // expected-error{{missing type specifier after 'operator'}}
x.operator typedef; // expected-error{{missing type specifier after 'operator'}}
}
@@ -15,7 +15,7 @@
X *x;
x->int; // expected-error{{expected unqualified-id}}
- x->~int(); // expected-error{{expected the class name}}
+ x->~int(); // expected-error{{expected a class name}}
x->operator; // expected-error{{missing type specifier after 'operator'}}
x->operator typedef; // expected-error{{missing type specifier after 'operator'}}
}