blob: 0fb97e8ab7d367b1e9e5bc510bd95bdbf4010199 (
plain)
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
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
|
// { dg-do compile }
// Origin: Giovanni Bajo <giovannibajo at gcc dot gnu dot org>
// DR147: Naming the constructor (PR 11764)
namespace N1 {
struct A { A(); void f(); };
struct B: public A { B(); };
A::A() { }
B::B() { }
B::A ba;
A::A a; // { dg-error "constructor" "the injected-class-name can never be found through qualified lookup" }
void A::f()
{
A::A(); // { dg-message "::A" "c++/42415" }
}
void f()
{
A::A a; // { dg-error "constructor" "constructor" }
} // { dg-error "" "error cascade" { target *-*-* } 23 } error cascade
}
namespace N2 {
// This is nasty: if we allowed the injected-class-name to be looked as a
// qualified type, then the following code would be well-formed. Basically
// the last line is defining the static member (with redundant parenthesis).
// Instead, it should be rejected as a malformed constructor declaration.
template <class T> struct A {
template <class T2> A(T2);
static A x;
};
template<> template <> A<char>::A<char>(char);
template<> A<int>::A<int>(A<int>::x); // { dg-error "" "this is an invalid declaration of the constructor" }
}
// But DR 318 says that in situations where a type is syntactically
// required, lookup finds it.
struct C
{
C();
typedef int T;
};
struct C::C c;
C::C::T t;
struct D: C::C
{
D(): C::C() { }
};
// And if lookup doesn't find the injected-class-name, we aren't naming the
// constructor (c++/44401).
struct E
{
int E;
};
int E::*p = &E::E;
|
