MSVC accepts this:
class A {
A::A();
};
Clang accepts regular member functions with extra qualification as an MS
extension, but not constructors. This changes the parser to defer rejecting
qualified constructors so that the same Sema logic can apply to constructors as
regular member functions. This also improves the error message when MS
extensions are disabled (in my opinion). Before it was:
/Users/jason/Desktop/test.cpp:2:8: error: expected member name or ';' after declaration specifiers
A::A();
~~~~ ^
1 error generated.
After:
/Users/jason/Desktop/test.cpp:2:6: error: extra qualification on member 'A'
A::A();
~~~^
1 error generated.
Patch by Jason Haslam.
llvm-svn: 174980
that name constructors, the endless joys of out-of-line constructor
definitions, and various other corner cases that the previous hack
never imagined. Fixes PR5688 and tightens up semantic analysis for
constructor names.
Additionally, fixed a problem where we wouldn't properly enter the
declarator scope of a parenthesized declarator. We were entering the
scope, then leaving it when we saw the ")"; now, we re-enter the
declarator scope before parsing the parameter list.
Note that we are forced to perform some tentative parsing within a
class (call it C) to tell the difference between
C(int); // constructor
and
C (f)(int); // member function
which is rather unfortunate. And, although it isn't necessary for
correctness, we use the same tentative-parsing mechanism for
out-of-line constructors to improve diagnostics in icky cases like:
C::C C::f(int); // error: C::C refers to the constructor name, but
// we complain nicely and recover by treating it as
// a type.
llvm-svn: 93322
Dmitri Gribenko