Tolerate extraneous "template<>" headers better, downgrading the

complaint to a warning and providing a helpful node in the case where
the "template<>" header is redundant because the corresponding
template-id refers to an explicit specialization. C++0x might still
change this behavior, and existing practice is all over the place on
the number of "template<>" headers actually needed.

llvm-svn: 89651

1 files changed, 17 insertions, 0 deletions

diff --git a/clang/test/SemaTemplate/temp_explicit.cpp b/clang/test/SemaTemplate/temp_explicit.cpp
index 9c824d6f414..ae409aff662 100644
--- a/clang/test/SemaTemplate/temp_explicit.cpp
+++ b/clang/test/SemaTemplate/temp_explicit.cpp
@@ -108,3 +108,20 @@ struct X6 {
 };
 
 template struct X6::Inner; // expected-error{{non-templated}}
+
+// PR5559
+template <typename T>
+struct Foo;
+
+template <>
+struct Foo<int> // expected-note{{header not required for explicitly-specialized}}
+{
+    template <typename U>
+    struct Bar
+    {};
+};
+
+template <> // expected-warning{{extraneous template parameter list}}
+template <>
+struct Foo<int>::Bar<void>
+{};