1 files changed, 66 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/tc1/dr147.C b/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/tc1/dr147.C
new file mode 100644
index 000000000..6799b7dcc
--- /dev/null
+++ b/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/tc1/dr147.C
@@ -0,0 +1,66 @@
+// { dg-do compile }
+// Origin: Giovanni Bajo <giovannibajo at gcc dot gnu dot org>
+// DR147: Naming the constructor (PR 11764) 
+
+namespace N1 {
+
+struct A { A(); void f(); };
+struct B: public A { B(); };
+
+A::A() { }
+B::B() { }
+
+B::A ba;
+A::A a; // { dg-error "constructor" "the injected-class-name can never be found through qualified lookup" }
+
+void A::f()
+{
+  A::A();			// { dg-message "::A" "c++/42415" }
+}
+
+void f()
+{
+  A::A a; // { dg-error "constructor" }
+} // { dg-error "" "" { target *-*-* } 23 } error cascade
+}
+
+namespace N2 {
+
+// This is nasty: if we allowed the injected-class-name to be looked as a 
+//  qualified type, then the following code would be well-formed. Basically
+//  the last line is defining the static member (with redundant parenthesis).
+// Instead, it should be rejected as a malformed constructor declaration.
+
+template <class T> struct A {
+  template <class T2> A(T2);
+  static A x;
+};
+template<> template <> A<char>::A<char>(char);
+template<> A<int>::A<int>(A<int>::x);  // { dg-error "" "this is an invalid declaration of the constructor" }
+
+}
+
+// But DR 318 says that in situations where a type is syntactically
+// required, lookup finds it.
+
+struct C
+{
+  C();
+  typedef int T;
+};
+struct C::C c;
+C::C::T t;
+struct D: C::C
+{
+  D(): C::C() { }
+};
+
+// And if lookup doesn't find the injected-class-name, we aren't naming the
+// constructor (c++/44401).
+
+struct E
+{
+  int E;
+};
+
+int E::*p = &E::E;