if (TREE_CODE (parser->scope) == NAMESPACE_DECL)
error_at (location, "%qE in namespace %qE does not name a type",
id, parser->scope);
+ else if (CLASS_TYPE_P (parser->scope)
+ && constructor_name_p (id, parser->scope)
+ && cp_lexer_next_token_is (parser->lexer, CPP_LESS))
+ /* A<T>::A<T>() */
+ error_at (location, "invalid use of constructor %<%T::%E%> as "
+ "template", parser->scope, id);
else if (TYPE_P (parser->scope)
&& dependent_scope_p (parser->scope))
error_at (location, "need %<typename%> before %<%T::%E%> because "
if (scope
&& token->type == CPP_NAME
&& (cp_lexer_peek_nth_token (parser->lexer, 2)->type
- == CPP_OPEN_PAREN)
+ != CPP_LESS)
&& constructor_name_p (token->u.value, scope))
{
cp_lexer_consume_token (parser->lexer);
}
/* If there was an explicit qualification (S::~T), first look
- in the scope given by the qualification (i.e., S). */
+ in the scope given by the qualification (i.e., S).
+
+ Note: in the calls to cp_parser_class_name below we pretend that
+ the lookup had an explicit 'class' tag so that lookup finds the
+ injected-class-name rather than the constructor. */
done = false;
type_decl = NULL_TREE;
if (scope)
type_decl = cp_parser_class_name (parser,
/*typename_keyword_p=*/false,
/*template_keyword_p=*/false,
- none_type,
+ class_type,
/*check_dependency=*/false,
/*class_head_p=*/false,
declarator_p);
= cp_parser_class_name (parser,
/*typename_keyword_p=*/false,
/*template_keyword_p=*/false,
- none_type,
+ class_type,
/*check_dependency=*/false,
/*class_head_p=*/false,
declarator_p);
= cp_parser_class_name (parser,
/*typename_keyword_p=*/false,
/*template_keyword_p=*/false,
- none_type,
+ class_type,
/*check_dependency=*/false,
/*class_head_p=*/false,
declarator_p);
= cp_parser_class_name (parser,
/*typename_keyword_p=*/false,
/*template_keyword_p=*/false,
- none_type,
+ class_type,
/*check_dependency=*/false,
/*class_head_p=*/false,
declarator_p);
unqualified_name = constructor_name (class_type);
sfk = sfk_constructor;
}
+ else if (is_overloaded_fn (unqualified_name)
+ && DECL_CONSTRUCTOR_P (get_first_fn
+ (unqualified_name)))
+ sfk = sfk_constructor;
if (ctor_dtor_or_conv_p && sfk != sfk_none)
*ctor_dtor_or_conv_p = -1;
lookup_member, we must enter the scope here. */
if (dependent_p)
pushed_scope = push_scope (parser->scope);
+
+ /* 3.4.3.1: In a lookup in which the constructor is an acceptable
+ lookup result and the nested-name-specifier nominates a class C:
+ * if the name specified after the nested-name-specifier, when
+ looked up in C, is the injected-class-name of C (Clause 9), or
+ * if the name specified after the nested-name-specifier is the
+ same as the identifier or the simple-template-id's template-
+ name in the last component of the nested-name-specifier,
+ the name is instead considered to name the constructor of
+ class C. [ Note: for example, the constructor is not an
+ acceptable lookup result in an elaborated-type-specifier so
+ the constructor would not be used in place of the
+ injected-class-name. --end note ] Such a constructor name
+ shall be used only in the declarator-id of a declaration that
+ names a constructor or in a using-declaration. */
+ if (tag_type == none_type
+ && CLASS_TYPE_P (parser->scope)
+ && constructor_name_p (name, parser->scope))
+ name = ctor_identifier;
+
/* If the PARSER->SCOPE is a template specialization, it
may be instantiated during name lookup. In that case,
errors may be issued. Even if we rollback the current
cp_parser_constructor_declarator_p (cp_parser *parser, bool friend_p)
{
bool constructor_p;
- tree type_decl = NULL_TREE;
- bool nested_name_p;
+ tree nested_name_specifier;
cp_token *next_token;
/* The common case is that this is not a constructor declarator, so
cp_parser_global_scope_opt (parser,
/*current_scope_valid_p=*/false);
/* Look for the nested-name-specifier. */
- nested_name_p
+ nested_name_specifier
= (cp_parser_nested_name_specifier_opt (parser,
/*typename_keyword_p=*/false,
/*check_dependency_p=*/false,
/*type_p=*/false,
- /*is_declaration=*/false)
- != NULL_TREE);
+ /*is_declaration=*/false));
/* Outside of a class-specifier, there must be a
nested-name-specifier. */
- if (!nested_name_p &&
+ if (!nested_name_specifier &&
(!at_class_scope_p () || !TYPE_BEING_DEFINED (current_class_type)
|| friend_p))
constructor_p = false;
+ else if (nested_name_specifier == error_mark_node)
+ constructor_p = false;
+
+ /* If we have a class scope, this is easy; DR 147 says that S::S always
+ names the constructor, and no other qualified name could. */
+ if (constructor_p && nested_name_specifier
+ && TYPE_P (nested_name_specifier))
+ {
+ tree id = cp_parser_unqualified_id (parser,
+ /*template_keyword_p=*/false,
+ /*check_dependency_p=*/false,
+ /*declarator_p=*/true,
+ /*optional_p=*/false);
+ if (is_overloaded_fn (id))
+ id = DECL_NAME (get_first_fn (id));
+ if (!constructor_name_p (id, nested_name_specifier))
+ constructor_p = false;
+ }
/* If we still think that this might be a constructor-declarator,
look for a class-name. */
- if (constructor_p)
+ else if (constructor_p)
{
/* If we have:
- template <typename T> struct S { S(); };
- template <typename T> S<T>::S ();
-
- we must recognize that the nested `S' names a class.
- Similarly, for:
+ template <typename T> struct S {
+ S();
+ };
- template <typename T> S<T>::S<T> ();
-
- we must recognize that the nested `S' names a template. */
+ we must recognize that the nested `S' names a class. */
+ tree type_decl;
type_decl = cp_parser_class_name (parser,
/*typename_keyword_p=*/false,
/*template_keyword_p=*/false,
/*is_declaration=*/false);
/* If there was no class-name, then this is not a constructor. */
constructor_p = !cp_parser_error_occurred (parser);
- }
- /* If we're still considering a constructor, we have to see a `(',
- to begin the parameter-declaration-clause, followed by either a
- `)', an `...', or a decl-specifier. We need to check for a
- type-specifier to avoid being fooled into thinking that:
+ /* If we're still considering a constructor, we have to see a `(',
+ to begin the parameter-declaration-clause, followed by either a
+ `)', an `...', or a decl-specifier. We need to check for a
+ type-specifier to avoid being fooled into thinking that:
- S::S (f) (int);
+ S (f) (int);
- is a constructor. (It is actually a function named `f' that
- takes one parameter (of type `int') and returns a value of type
- `S::S'. */
- if (constructor_p
- && cp_parser_require (parser, CPP_OPEN_PAREN, "%<(%>"))
- {
- if (cp_lexer_next_token_is_not (parser->lexer, CPP_CLOSE_PAREN)
+ is a constructor. (It is actually a function named `f' that
+ takes one parameter (of type `int') and returns a value of type
+ `S'. */
+ if (constructor_p
+ && !cp_parser_require (parser, CPP_OPEN_PAREN, "%<(%>"))
+ constructor_p = false;
+
+ if (constructor_p
+ && cp_lexer_next_token_is_not (parser->lexer, CPP_CLOSE_PAREN)
&& cp_lexer_next_token_is_not (parser->lexer, CPP_ELLIPSIS)
/* A parameter declaration begins with a decl-specifier,
which is either the "attribute" keyword, a storage class
constructor_p = !cp_parser_error_occurred (parser);
}
}
- else
- constructor_p = false;
+
/* We did not really want to consume any tokens. */
cp_parser_abort_tentative_parse (parser);
projects / platform / upstream / linaro-gcc.git / commitdiff