Be more careful around dependent nested-name-specifiers, complaining

when they are not complete (since we could not match them up to
anything) and ensuring that enum parsing can cope with dependent
elaborated-type-specifiers. Fixes PR6915 and PR6649.



git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/cfe/trunk@102247 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8

1 files changed, 35 insertions, 0 deletions

diff --git a/test/SemaTemplate/elaborated-type-specifier.cpp b/test/SemaTemplate/elaborated-type-specifier.cpp
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000..c38bf547a1
--- /dev/null
+++ b/test/SemaTemplate/elaborated-type-specifier.cpp
@@ -0,0 +1,35 @@
+// RUN: %clang_cc1 -fsyntax-only -verify %s
+
+namespace PR6915 {
+  template <typename T>
+  class D {
+    enum T::X v; // expected-error{{use of 'X' with tag type that does not match previous declaration}} \
+    // expected-error{{no enum named 'X' in 'PR6915::D3'}}
+  };
+
+  struct D1 {
+    enum X { value };
+  };
+  struct D2 { 
+    class X { }; // expected-note{{previous use is here}}
+  };
+  struct D3 { };
+
+  template class D<D1>;
+  template class D<D2>; // expected-note{{in instantiation of}}
+  template class D<D3>; // expected-note{{in instantiation of}}
+}
+
+template<typename T>
+struct DeclOrDef {
+  enum T::foo; // expected-error{{nested name specifier for a declaration cannot depend on a template parameter}}
+  enum T::bar { // expected-error{{nested name specifier for a declaration cannot depend on a template parameter}}
+    value 
+  };
+};
+
+namespace PR6649 {
+  template <typename T> struct foo { 
+    class T::bar;  // expected-error{{nested name specifier for a declaration cannot depend on a template parameter}}
+  };
+}