[Bug c++/97202] GCC reports an error: expected unqualified-id before ‘short’
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97202 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|--- |14.0
[Bug c++/97202] GCC reports an error: expected unqualified-id before ‘short’
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97202 Marek Polacek changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |FIXED Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED --- Comment #10 from Marek Polacek --- Should be all fixed now.
[Bug c++/97202] GCC reports an error: expected unqualified-id before ‘short’
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97202
--- Comment #9 from GCC Commits ---
The trunk branch has been updated by Marek Polacek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:cff174fabd6c980c09aee95db1d9d5c22421761f
commit r14-8915-gcff174fabd6c980c09aee95db1d9d5c22421761f
Author: Marek Polacek
Date: Fri Feb 2 14:53:01 2024 -0500
c++: DR2237, cdtor and template-id tweaks [PR107126]
Since my r11-532 changes to implement DR2237, for this test:
template
struct S {
S();
};
in C++20 we emit the ugly:
q.C:3:8: error: expected unqualified-id before ')' token
3 | S();
which doesn't explain what the problem is. This patch improves that
diagnostic, reduces the error to a pedwarn, and adds a -Wc++20-compat
diagnostic. We now say:
q.C:3:7: warning: template-id not allowed for constructor in C++20
[-Wtemplate-id-cdtor]
3 | S();
q.C:3:7: note: remove the '< >'
This patch also fixes
where the C++20 diagnostic was missing altogether: The problem was that I
checked
for CPP_TEMPLATE_ID too early, at a point at which cp_parser_template_id
may not
have been called yet. So let's check for it at the end of the function,
after
the tentative parse and rollback.
-Wc++20-compat triggered in libitm/; I sent a patch for that.
DR 2237
PR c++/107126
PR c++/97202
gcc/c-family/ChangeLog:
* c-opts.cc (c_common_post_options): In C++20 or with
-Wc++20-compat,
turn on -Wtemplate-id-cdtor.
* c.opt (Wtemplate-id-cdtor): New.
gcc/cp/ChangeLog:
* parser.cc (cp_parser_unqualified_id): Downgrade the DR2237 error
to
a pedwarn.
(cp_parser_constructor_declarator_p): Likewise.
gcc/ChangeLog:
* doc/invoke.texi: Document -Wtemplate-id-cdtor.
gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog:
* g++.dg/DRs/dr2237.C: Adjust dg-error.
* g++.dg/parse/constructor2.C: Likewise.
* g++.dg/template/error34.C: Likewise.
* g++.old-deja/g++.pt/ctor2.C: Likewise.
* g++.dg/DRs/dr2237-2.C: New test.
* g++.dg/DRs/dr2237-3.C: New test.
* g++.dg/DRs/dr2237-4.C: New test.
* g++.dg/DRs/dr2237-5.C: New test.
* g++.dg/warn/Wtemplate-id-cdtor-1.C: New test.
* g++.dg/warn/Wtemplate-id-cdtor-2.C: New test.
* g++.dg/warn/Wtemplate-id-cdtor-3.C: New test.
* g++.dg/warn/Wtemplate-id-cdtor-4.C: New test.
[Bug c++/97202] GCC reports an error: expected unqualified-id before ‘short’
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97202
--- Comment #8 from Jonathan Wakely ---
PR 104437 pointed out that the invalid constructor is accepted if it has a
redundant inline specifier:
template struct S : Base {
inline S() {}
};
[Bug c++/97202] GCC reports an error: expected unqualified-id before ‘short’
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97202 Jonathan Wakely changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jengelh at inai dot de --- Comment #7 from Jonathan Wakely --- *** Bug 104437 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
[Bug c++/97202] GCC reports an error: expected unqualified-id before ‘short’
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97202
--- Comment #6 from Jonathan Wakely ---
If the invalid special member is defined out of the class body, you get another
error:
template
struct F
{
F();
};
template
inline F::F() { }
101032.C:4:8: error: expected unqualified-id before ‘)’ token
4 | F();
|^
101032.C:8:8: error: no declaration matches ‘F::F()’
8 | inline F::F() { }
|^~~~
101032.C:8:8: note: no functions named ‘F::F()’
101032.C:2:8: note: ‘struct F’ defined here
2 | struct F
|^
As well as improving the first error (which is the subject of this bug) maybe
the constructor could be parsed as though it had been written correctly, so
that the "no declaration matches" error doesn't happen. Compilation is already
going to fail, we don't need to also complain about the valid function
definition not matching anything.
[Bug c++/97202] GCC reports an error: expected unqualified-id before ‘short’
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97202 Jonathan Wakely changed: What|Removed |Added CC||kevin.c.eady at gmail dot com --- Comment #5 from Jonathan Wakely --- *** Bug 101032 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
[Bug c++/97202] GCC reports an error: expected unqualified-id before ‘short’
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97202 Marek Polacek changed: What|Removed |Added CC||felix.morgner at gmail dot com --- Comment #4 from Marek Polacek --- *** Bug 100997 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
[Bug c++/97202] GCC reports an error: expected unqualified-id before ‘short’
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97202 Marek Polacek changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|11.0|---
[Bug c++/97202] GCC reports an error: expected unqualified-id before ‘short’
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97202 Marek Polacek changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords|rejects-valid |diagnostic Status|RESOLVED|ASSIGNED Last reconfirmed||2020-09-25 Summary|[11 Regression] GCC reports |GCC reports an error: |an error: expected |expected unqualified-id |unqualified-id before |before ‘short’ |‘short’ | Resolution|INVALID |--- Ever confirmed|0 |1 --- Comment #3 from Marek Polacek --- Actually, let me reopen this to improve the diagnostic.
