From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: by sourceware.org (Postfix, from userid 48)
	id 773DA38582BC; Fri,  7 Oct 2022 03:22:31 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 773DA38582BC
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org;
	s=default; t=1665112951;
	bh=pdPwSF53Ezyclromy5g9139zC/+I8CA+J/7V2JmtVus=;
	h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From;
	b=Df/1vyZCkD2TYtYftrOXJJzwuFiNGDvYN6SLVF3gLQXWLjFMFqJqHiK5SgOLExlvC
	 /UCaCKXnKLYGRa1+8bn74WB1bLQzc9IatPr4aM1cm5SrZHHDmU+rZkUrwRkkUYriZ8
	 ow282Vbst9ztf1J9GaGu0cP98OD3gP+lUpCjGHtk=
From: "pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug c++/107178] Diagnosis for colon vs semi-colon in a member
 function declaration
Date: Fri, 07 Oct 2022 03:22:13 +0000
X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC
X-Bugzilla-Type: changed
X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None
X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc
X-Bugzilla-Component: c++
X-Bugzilla-Version: 12.2.1
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: diagnostic
X-Bugzilla-Severity: enhancement
X-Bugzilla-Who: pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Status: UNCONFIRMED
X-Bugzilla-Resolution: 
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: ---
X-Bugzilla-Flags: 
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: keywords bug_severity
Message-ID: <bug-107178-4-1PAbaKUlcg@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-107178-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-107178-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
MIME-Version: 1.0
List-Id: <gcc-bugs.sourceware.org>

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D107178

Andrew Pinski <pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Keywords|                            |diagnostic
           Severity|normal                      |enhancement

--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski <pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
clang diagnostic is way worse in my mind. It does not even point to the : .
GCC is assuming if you don't have a constructor you have a type and that ty=
pe
here would be T (S::)()

Take:
```
struct S {
    int (*foo)() :=20
    int t;
};

```
Trying to define a pointer to function field foo but used : instead of ;.
GCC diagonstic seems reasonable.
because GCC assumes you started to define a bitfield which is reasonable
assumention really.
clang diagnostic here is never even close to helpful.

At least GCC points out the colon and even suggest you started a bitfield w=
hich
is what a colon normally does here ....=