From patchwork Thu Jun  9 14:19:20 2011
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: [C++] PR 29003
X-Patchwork-Submitter: Paolo Carlini <paolo.carlini@oracle.com>
X-Patchwork-Id: 99750
Message-Id: <4DF0D668.4060107@oracle.com>
To: Jason Merrill <jason@redhat.com>
Cc: "gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org" <gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org>
Date: Thu, 09 Jun 2011 16:19:20 +0200
From: Paolo Carlini <paolo.carlini@oracle.com>
List-Id: <gcc-patches.gcc.gnu.org>

On 06/09/2011 04:06 PM, Jason Merrill wrote:
> On 06/09/2011 06:07 AM, Paolo Carlini wrote:
>> I tested on x86_64-linux the below patchlet for a long standing
>> accepts-invalid. Is it ok for mainline? Or do we want a different error
>> message? A somehow tighter check?
>
> The error message needs to say something about typedef being the 
> problem.  Maybe follow the pattern of the previous error, and say
>
>         error ("declaration of %qD as %<typedef%>", dname);
Right. Updated and retested. Is this variant Ok?

Thanks,
Paolo.

///////////////////////

Index: testsuite/g++.dg/parse/error38.C
===================================================================
--- testsuite/g++.dg/parse/error38.C	(revision 0)
+++ testsuite/g++.dg/parse/error38.C	(revision 0)
@@ -0,0 +1,3 @@
+// PR c++/29003
+
+typedef int operator !(); // { dg-error "declaration" }
Index: cp/decl.c
===================================================================
--- cp/decl.c	(revision 174838)
+++ cp/decl.c	(working copy)
@@ -8441,6 +8441,13 @@ grokdeclarator (const cp_declarator *declarator,
       return error_mark_node;
     }
 
+  if (dname && IDENTIFIER_OPNAME_P (dname)
+      && declspecs->specs[(int)ds_typedef])
+    {
+      error ("declaration of %qD as %<typedef%>", dname);
+      return error_mark_node;
+    }
+
   /* Anything declared one level down from the top level
      must be one of the parameters of a function
      (because the body is at least two levels down).  */