blob: 02ea64b7912bc646fc8a4507f322406f4c619024 (
plain)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
|
// { dg-do compile }
// { dg-options "-std=gnu++98" }
// Origin: <tilps at hotmail dot com>
// c++/9154: poor error message for ">>" vs "> >" in template argument list
/*
* Test that the error message is issued properly
*/
template <class T>
class A {};
A<A<int>> blah; // { dg-error "should be '> >' within" }
A<int>> blah2; // { dg-error "spurious '>>'" }
/*
* Test that a few valid constructs containing a ">>" token in a
* template argument list are handled correctly.
*/
template <int N>
void B(void) {}
int Btest()
{
B<256 >> 4>();
}
template <int N = 123>>4>
struct C {};
template <int> struct D {};
template <typename> struct E {};
E<D< 1>>2 > > E1;
const int x = 0;
E<D< 1>>x > > E2;
template <int> struct F {
typedef int I;
};
template <typename T = F< 1>>2 >::I>
struct G {};
/*
* In this special case, a valid type-id (H() is a function type) is followed
* by '>>', but the argument should still be parsed as an expression, which
* will then be rejected as non-constant expression.
*/
struct H
{
int operator >>(int);
};
template <int V> struct L {};
L<H() >> 5> l; // { dg-error "" "non-constant" }
/*
* This case used to not emit the nice error message because of a typo
* in the code.
*/
template <void (*)(void)>
struct K {};
void KFunc(void);
A<K<&KFunc>> k1; // { dg-error "" }
K<&KFunc>> k2; // { dg-error "" }
|
