1 files changed, 25 insertions, 2 deletions
diff --git a/clang/test/SemaTemplate/injected-class-name.cpp b/clang/test/SemaTemplate/injected-class-name.cpp
index 43fb454bca5..c5f826d849c 100644
--- a/clang/test/SemaTemplate/injected-class-name.cpp
+++ b/clang/test/SemaTemplate/injected-class-name.cpp
@@ -1,5 +1,4 @@
 // RUN: clang-cc -fsyntax-only -verify %s
-
 template<typename T>
 struct X {
   X<T*> *ptr;
@@ -13,5 +12,29 @@ struct X<int***> {
 };
 
 // FIXME: EDG rejects this in their strict-conformance mode, but I
-// don't see any wording making this ill-formed.
+// don't see any wording making this ill-formed.  Actually,
+// [temp.local]p2 might make it ill-formed. Are we "in the scope of
+// the class template specialization?"
 X<float>::X<int> xi = x;
+
+// [temp.local]p1:
+
+// FIXME: test non-type and template template parameters
+template<typename T, typename U>
+struct X0 {
+  typedef T type;
+  typedef U U_type;
+  typedef U_type U_type2;
+
+  void f0(const X0&); // expected-note{{here}}
+  void f0(X0&);
+  void f0(const X0<T, U>&); // expected-error{{redecl}}
+
+  void f1(const X0&); // expected-note{{here}}
+  void f1(X0&);
+  void f1(const X0<type, U_type2>&); // expected-error{{redecl}}
+
+  void f2(const X0&); // expected-note{{here}}
+  void f2(X0&);
+  void f2(const ::X0<type, U_type2>&); // expected-error{{redecl}}
+};