41 lines
992 B
C++
41 lines
992 B
C++
|
// RUN: clang-cc -fsyntax-only -verify %s
|
||
|
|
template<typename T>
|
||
|
|
struct X {
|
||
|
|
X<T*> *ptr;
|
||
|
|
};
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
X<int> x;
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
template<>
|
||
|
|
struct X<int***> {
|
||
|
|
typedef X<int***> *ptr;
|
||
|
|
};
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
// FIXME: EDG rejects this in their strict-conformance mode, but I
|
||
|
|
// don't see any wording making this ill-formed. Actually,
|
||
|
|
// [temp.local]p2 might make it ill-formed. Are we "in the scope of
|
||
|
|
// the class template specialization?"
|
||
|
|
X<float>::X<int> xi = x;
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
// [temp.local]p1:
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
// FIXME: test non-type and template template parameters
|
||
|
|
template<typename T, typename U>
|
||
|
|
struct X0 {
|
||
|
|
typedef T type;
|
||
|
|
typedef U U_type;
|
||
|
|
typedef U_type U_type2;
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
void f0(const X0&); // expected-note{{here}}
|
||
|
|
void f0(X0&);
|
||
|
|
void f0(const X0<T, U>&); // expected-error{{redecl}}
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
void f1(const X0&); // expected-note{{here}}
|
||
|
|
void f1(X0&);
|
||
|
|
void f1(const X0<type, U_type2>&); // expected-error{{redecl}}
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
void f2(const X0&); // expected-note{{here}}
|
||
|
|
void f2(X0&);
|
||
|
|
void f2(const ::X0<type, U_type2>&); // expected-error{{redecl}}
|
||
|
|
};
|