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 6D5F33855015; Fri, 11 Jun 2021 16:58:21 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 6D5F33855015
From: "redi at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: =?UTF-8?B?W0J1ZyBjKysvOTcyMDJdIEdDQyByZXBvcnRzIGFuIGVycm9yOiBl?=
 =?UTF-8?B?eHBlY3RlZCB1bnF1YWxpZmllZC1pZCBiZWZvcmUg4oCYc2hvcnTigJk=?=
Date: Fri, 11 Jun 2021 16:58:21 +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: 11.0
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: diagnostic
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: redi at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Status: ASSIGNED
X-Bugzilla-Resolution: 
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: ---
X-Bugzilla-Flags: 
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: 
Message-ID: <bug-97202-4-99qzBv7lzY@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-97202-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-97202-4@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
X-BeenThere: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Gcc-bugs mailing list <gcc-bugs.gcc.gnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://gcc.gnu.org/mailman/options/gcc-bugs>,
 <mailto:gcc-bugs-request@gcc.gnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-bugs/>
List-Post: <mailto:gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gcc-bugs-request@gcc.gnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://gcc.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gcc-bugs>,
 <mailto:gcc-bugs-request@gcc.gnu.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 11 Jun 2021 16:58:21 -0000

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D97202

--- Comment #6 from Jonathan Wakely <redi at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
If the invalid special member is defined out of the class body, you get ano=
ther
error:

template<typename T>
struct F
{
  F<T>();
};

template<typename T>
inline F<T>::F() { }


101032.C:4:8: error: expected unqualified-id before =E2=80=98)=E2=80=99 tok=
en
    4 |   F<T>();
      |        ^
101032.C:8:8: error: no declaration matches =E2=80=98F<T>::F()=E2=80=99
    8 | inline F<T>::F() { }
      |        ^~~~
101032.C:8:8: note: no functions named =E2=80=98F<T>::F()=E2=80=99
101032.C:2:8: note: =E2=80=98struct F<T>=E2=80=99 defined here
    2 | struct F
      |        ^

As well as improving the first error (which is the subject of this bug) may=
be
the constructor could be parsed as though it had been written correctly, so
that the "no declaration matches" error doesn't happen. Compilation is alre=
ady
going to fail, we don't need to also complain about the valid function
definition not matching anything.=