[Bug c/44854] Improve diagnostic for missing member name or ';' in a struct

["manu at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla at gcc dot gnu dot org>]

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44854

Manuel LÃpez-IbÃÃez <manu at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |manu at gcc dot gnu.org

--- Comment #2 from Manuel LÃpez-IbÃÃez <manu at gcc dot gnu.org> 2011-10-03 10:23:57 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #1)
> identifier is the same as  member name.  In fact I say GCC's diagnostic is more
> correct as ( can be there also.

I am sorry Andrew, but this way of reasoning is counter-intuitive. Can you
write?

struct foo { int (};

No, so talking about '(' doesn't make sense. And: "specifier-qualifier-list at
end of input" is equally bogus.

BTW, clang++ is neither perfect, and it makes a mess of error-recovery here.

/tmp/webcompile/_12636_0.cc:1:18: error: expected member name or ';' after
declaration specifiers
struct foo { int };
             ~~~ ^
/tmp/webcompile/_12636_0.cc:1:20: error: expected '}'
struct foo { int };
                   ^
/tmp/webcompile/_12636_0.cc:1:12: note: to match this '{'
struct foo { int };
           ^
/tmp/webcompile/_12636_0.cc:1:20: error: expected ';' after struct
struct foo { int };
                   ^
                   ;
3 errors generated.

I guess it skips the '}' as the (invalid) member name, and consumes the ";" as
the end of the member declaration. Then, it notices that it needs a '}' and a
';'.

On the other hand, g++ is almost perfect:

test.cc:1:18: error: expected unqualified-id before â}â token

except for the legalese-speak "unqualified-id".