Viewing file:  dr147.C (1.42 KB) -rw-r--r--
Select action/file-type:
 (+) |  (+) |  (+) | Code (+) | Session (+) |  (+) | SDB (+) |  (+) |  (+) |  (+) |  (+) |  (+) |
// { 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 *-*-* } .-1 } 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;
|
