Add a wicked little test-case that illustrates what we have to deal

with to properly support member access expressions in templates. This
test is XFAIL'd, because we get it completely wrong, but I've made the
minimal changes to the representation to at least avoid a crash.

llvm-svn: 80856

1 files changed, 48 insertions, 0 deletions

diff --git a/clang/test/SemaTemplate/member-access-expr.cpp b/clang/test/SemaTemplate/member-access-expr.cpp
new file mode 100644
index 00000000000..f41dc2120ab
--- /dev/null
+++ b/clang/test/SemaTemplate/member-access-expr.cpp
@@ -0,0 +1,48 @@
+// RUN: clang-cc -fsyntax-only -verify %s
+// XFAIL
+template<typename T>
+void call_f0(T x) {
+  x.Base::f0();
+}
+
+struct Base {
+  void f0();
+};
+
+struct X0 : Base { 
+  typedef Base CrazyBase;
+};
+
+void test_f0(X0 x0) {
+  call_f0(x0);
+}
+
+template<typename TheBase, typename T>
+void call_f0_through_typedef(T x) {
+  typedef TheBase Base2;
+  x.Base2::f0();
+}
+
+void test_f0_through_typedef(X0 x0) {
+  call_f0_through_typedef<Base>(x0);
+}
+
+template<typename TheBase, typename T>
+void call_f0_through_typedef2(T x) {
+  typedef TheBase CrazyBase; // expected-note{{current scope}}
+  x.CrazyBase::f0(); // expected-error{{ambiguous}}
+}
+
+struct OtherBase { };
+
+struct X1 : Base, OtherBase { 
+  typedef OtherBase CrazyBase; // expected-note{{object type}}
+};
+
+void test_f0_through_typedef2(X0 x0, X1 x1) {
+  call_f0_through_typedef2<Base>(x0);
+  call_f0_through_typedef2<OtherBase>(x1);
+  call_f0_through_typedef2<Base>(x1); // expected-note{{here}}
+}
+
+