PR17567: Improve diagnostic for a mistyped constructor name. If we see something

that looks like a function declaration, except that it's missing a return type,
try typo-correcting it to the relevant constructor name.

In passing, fix a bug where the missing-type-specifier recovery codepath would
drop a preceding scope specifier on the floor, leading to follow-on diagnostics
and incorrect recovery for the auto-in-c++98 hack.

llvm-svn: 192644

1 files changed, 1 insertions, 3 deletions

diff --git a/clang/test/SemaCXX/nested-name-spec.cpp b/clang/test/SemaCXX/nested-name-spec.cpp
index 855af93c238..df4f1b269d7 100644
--- a/clang/test/SemaCXX/nested-name-spec.cpp
+++ b/clang/test/SemaCXX/nested-name-spec.cpp
@@ -167,9 +167,7 @@ void N::f() { } // okay
 struct Y;  // expected-note{{forward declaration of 'Y'}}
 Y::foo y; // expected-error{{incomplete type 'Y' named in nested name specifier}}
 
-X::X() : a(5) { } // expected-error{{use of undeclared identifier 'X'}} \
-      // expected-error{{C++ requires a type specifier for all declarations}} \
-      // expected-error{{only constructors take base initializers}}
+X::X() : a(5) { } // expected-error{{use of undeclared identifier 'X'}}
 
 struct foo_S {
   static bool value;