https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61753
Jonathan Wakely <redi at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Keywords| |diagnostic
Status|WAITING |NEW
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely <redi at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
This is not valid syntax for a constructor:
const Rule::Rule(const ExprPtr e) :
expr(e)
{
}
The first const is ill-formed (and the second one is pointless, but harmless)
The error message could be better though, reduced:
class Rule {
Rule(int e);
};
const Rule::Rule(int e) { }
test.cc:5:7: error: prototype for ‘Rule::Rule(int)’ does not match any in class
‘Rule’
const Rule::Rule(int e) { }
^
test.cc:1:7: error: candidates are: Rule::Rule(const Rule&)
class Rule {
^
test.cc:2:3: error: Rule::Rule(int)
Rule(int e);
^
EDG has a better diagnostic:
"test.cc", line 5: error: return type may not be specified on a constructor
