Fix some confusing diagnostic wording. s/implicit default/implicit/ if we're
not actually talking about a default constructor.
llvm-svn: 183885
diff --git a/clang/test/SemaCXX/implicit-virtual-member-functions.cpp b/clang/test/SemaCXX/implicit-virtual-member-functions.cpp
index f6082e5..cd547f5 100644
--- a/clang/test/SemaCXX/implicit-virtual-member-functions.cpp
+++ b/clang/test/SemaCXX/implicit-virtual-member-functions.cpp
@@ -9,7 +9,7 @@
void operator delete (void *, int); // expected-note {{'operator delete' declared here}}
};
-void B::f() { // expected-note {{implicit default destructor for 'B' first required here}}
+void B::f() { // expected-note {{implicit destructor for 'B' first required here}}
}
struct C : A { // expected-error {{no suitable member 'operator delete' in 'C'}}
@@ -17,13 +17,13 @@
void operator delete(void *, int); // expected-note {{'operator delete' declared here}}
};
-C::C() { } // expected-note {{implicit default destructor for 'C' first required here}}
+C::C() { } // expected-note {{implicit destructor for 'C' first required here}}
struct D : A { // expected-error {{no suitable member 'operator delete' in 'D'}}
void operator delete(void *, int); // expected-note {{'operator delete' declared here}}
};
void f() {
- new D; // expected-note {{implicit default destructor for 'D' first required here}}
+ new D; // expected-note {{implicit destructor for 'D' first required here}}
}