Improve handling of base initializers. We now parse initializers in out of line decls, such as:

class C {
    C() { }
    
    int a;
};

C::C() : a(10) { }

We also diagnose when initializers are used on declarations that aren't constructors:

t.cpp:1:10: error: only constructors take base initializers
void f() : a(10) { }
         ^

Doug and/or Sebastian: I'd appreciate a review, especially the nested-name-spec test results (from the looks of it we now match gcc in that test.)


git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/cfe/trunk@67672 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8

2 files changed, 11 insertions, 1 deletions

diff --git a/test/SemaCXX/constructor-initializer.cpp b/test/SemaCXX/constructor-initializer.cpp
index 81d56eac9c..d0c978a80d 100644
--- a/test/SemaCXX/constructor-initializer.cpp
+++ b/test/SemaCXX/constructor-initializer.cpp
@@ -45,3 +45,12 @@ public:
 class G : A {
   G() : A(10); // expected-error{{expected '{'}}
 };
+
+void f() : a(242) { } // expected-error{{only constructors take base initializers}}
+
+class H : A {
+  H();
+};
+
+H::H() : A(10) { }
+
diff --git a/test/SemaCXX/nested-name-spec.cpp b/test/SemaCXX/nested-name-spec.cpp
index 7aaa99175f..f575fb82b4 100644
--- a/test/SemaCXX/nested-name-spec.cpp
+++ b/test/SemaCXX/nested-name-spec.cpp
@@ -168,5 +168,6 @@ Y::foo y; // expected-error{{incomplete type 'struct Y' named in nested name spe
          // FIXME: ugly: expected-error{{invalid token after top level declarator}}
 
 X::X() : a(5) { } // expected-error{{use of undeclared identifier 'X'}} \
-      // expected-error{{expected function body after function declarator}}
+      // expected-error{{C++ requires a type specifier for all declarations}} \
+      // expected-error{{only constructors take base initializers}}