in a member access expression referring into the current instantiation
need not be resolved at template definition *if* the current
instantiation has any dependent base classes. Fixes PR6081.
llvm-svn: 93877
do not look into base classes if there are any dependent base
classes. Instead, note in the lookup result that we couldn't look into
any dependent bases. Use that new result kind to detect when this case
occurs, so that we can fall back to treating the type/value/etc. as a
member of an unknown specialization.
Fixes an issue where we were resolving lookup at template definition
time and then missing an ambiguity at template instantiation time.
llvm-svn: 93497
finds nothing), and the current instantiation has dependent base
classes, treat the qualified lookup as if it referred to an unknown
specialization. Fixes PR6031.
llvm-svn: 93433
name a template, when they occur in a base-specifier. This is one of
the (few) places where we know for sure that an identifier followed by
a '<' must be a template name, so we can diagnose and recover well:
test/SemaTemplate/dependent-base-classes.cpp:9:16: error: missing
'template'
keyword prior to dependent template name 'T::apply'
struct X1 : T::apply<U> { }; // expected-error{{missing 'template' ...
^
template
test/SemaTemplate/dependent-base-classes.cpp:12:13: error: unknown
template name
'vector'
struct X2 : vector<T> { }; // expected-error{{unknown template name
'vector'}}
^
2 diagnostics generated.
llvm-svn: 93257
initializers. This isn't actually in the C++ grammar (in any version),
but that's clearly an oversight: both GCC and EDG support this syntax,
and it's used within Boost code. I'll file a core issue proposing
precisely the change made here. Fixes PR6008.
llvm-svn: 93243
Douglas Gregor