Improve parsing and instantiation of destructor names, so that we can

now cope with the destruction of types named as dependent templates,
e.g.,

  y->template Y<T>::~Y()

Nominally, we implement C++0x [basic.lookup.qual]p6. However, we don't
follow the letter of the standard here because that would fail to
parse

  template<typename T, typename U>
  X0<T, U>::~X0() { }

properly. The problem is captured in core issue 339, which gives some
(but not enough!) guidance. I expect to revisit this code when the
resolution of 339 is clear, and/or we start capturing better source
information for DeclarationNames.

Fixes PR6152.

llvm-svn: 96367

1 files changed, 2 insertions, 2 deletions

diff --git a/clang/test/SemaCXX/destructor.cpp b/clang/test/SemaCXX/destructor.cpp
index 6837cd40157..a0c2c1e037e 100644
--- a/clang/test/SemaCXX/destructor.cpp
+++ b/clang/test/SemaCXX/destructor.cpp
@@ -40,9 +40,9 @@ struct F {
   ~F(); // expected-error {{destructor cannot be redeclared}}
 };
 
-~; // expected-error {{expected the class name after '~' to name a destructor}}
+~; // expected-error {{expected a class name after '~' to name a destructor}}
 ~undef(); // expected-error {{expected the class name after '~' to name a destructor}}
-~operator+(int, int);  // expected-error {{expected the class name after '~' to name a destructor}}
+~operator+(int, int);  // expected-error {{expected a class name after '~' to name a destructor}}
 ~F(){} // expected-error {{destructor must be a non-static member function}}
 
 struct G {