re PR c++/17401 (ICE with invalid pure specifier)

	PR c++/17401
	* parser.c (cp_parser_pure_specifier): Emit a specific error
	message with an invalid pure specifier.
	* decl2.c (grok_function_init): Remove.
	(grokfield): An initializer for a method is a always a pure
	specifier.

	PR c++/17401
	* g++.dg/parse/error25.C: New test.

From-SVN: r94656

5 files changed, 46 insertions, 58 deletions

diff --git a/gcc/cp/ChangeLog b/gcc/cp/ChangeLog
index 230e710..32e6645 100644
--- a/gcc/cp/ChangeLog
+++ b/gcc/cp/ChangeLog
@@ -1,3 +1,12 @@
+2005-02-03  Giovanni Bajo  <giovannibajo@gcc.gnu.org>
+
+	PR c++/17401
+	* parser.c (cp_parser_pure_specifier): Emit a specific error
+	message with an invalid pure specifier.
+	* decl2.c (grok_function_init): Remove.
+	(grokfield): An initializer for a method is a always a pure
+	specifier.
+
 2005-02-02  Matt Austern  <austern@apple.com>
 
 	PR c++/19628
diff --git a/gcc/cp/decl2.c b/gcc/cp/decl2.c
index 012ec59..0a74ed7 100644
--- a/gcc/cp/decl2.c
+++ b/gcc/cp/decl2.c
@@ -64,7 +64,6 @@ typedef struct priority_info_s {
 } *priority_info;
 
 static void mark_vtable_entries (tree);
-static void grok_function_init (tree, tree);
 static bool maybe_emit_vtables (tree);
 static tree build_anon_union_vars (tree);
 static bool acceptable_java_type (tree);
@@ -897,8 +896,11 @@ grokfield (const cp_declarator *declarator,
     {
       if (TREE_CODE (value) == FUNCTION_DECL)
 	{
-	  grok_function_init (value, init);
-	  init = NULL_TREE;
+	  /* Initializers for functions are rejected early in the parser.
+	     If we get here, it must be a pure specifier for a method.  */
+	  gcc_assert (TREE_CODE (TREE_TYPE (value)) == METHOD_TYPE);
+	  gcc_assert (error_operand_p (init) || integer_zerop (init));
+	  DECL_PURE_VIRTUAL_P (value) = 1;
 	}
       else if (pedantic && TREE_CODE (value) != VAR_DECL)
 	/* Already complained in grokdeclarator.  */
@@ -1045,55 +1047,6 @@ grokbitfield (const cp_declarator *declarator,
   return value;
 }
 
-/* When a function is declared with an initializer,
-   do the right thing.  Currently, there are two possibilities:
-
-   class B
-   {
-    public:
-     // initialization possibility #1.
-     virtual void f () = 0;
-     int g ();
-   };
-   
-   class D1 : B
-   {
-    public:
-     int d1;
-     // error, no f ();
-   };
-   
-   class D2 : B
-   {
-    public:
-     int d2;
-     void f ();
-   };
-   
-   class D3 : B
-   {
-    public:
-     int d3;
-     // initialization possibility #2
-     void f () = B::f;
-   };
-
-*/
-
-static void
-grok_function_init (tree decl, tree init)
-{
-  /* An initializer for a function tells how this function should
-     be inherited.  */
-  tree type = TREE_TYPE (decl);
-
-  if (TREE_CODE (type) == FUNCTION_TYPE)
-    error ("initializer specified for non-member function %qD", decl);
-  else if (integer_zerop (init))
-    DECL_PURE_VIRTUAL_P (decl) = 1;
-  else
-    error ("invalid initializer for virtual method %qD", decl);
-}
 
 void
 cplus_decl_attributes (tree *decl, tree attributes, int flags)
diff --git a/gcc/cp/parser.c b/gcc/cp/parser.c
index e89fd85..82d665e 100644
--- a/gcc/cp/parser.c
+++ b/gcc/cp/parser.c
@@ -13332,13 +13332,18 @@ cp_parser_pure_specifier (cp_parser* parser)
   if (!cp_parser_require (parser, CPP_EQ, "`='"))
     return error_mark_node;
   /* Look for the `0' token.  */
-  token = cp_parser_require (parser, CPP_NUMBER, "`0'");
-  /* Unfortunately, this will accept `0L' and `0x00' as well.  We need
-     to get information from the lexer about how the number was
-     spelled in order to fix this problem.  */
-  if (!token || !integer_zerop (token->value))
-    return error_mark_node;
+  token = cp_lexer_consume_token (parser->lexer);
+  if (token->type != CPP_NUMBER || !integer_zerop (token->value))
+    {
+      cp_parser_error (parser,
+		       "invalid pure specifier (only `= 0' is allowed)");
+      cp_parser_skip_to_end_of_statement (parser);
+      return error_mark_node;
+    }
 
+  /* FIXME: Unfortunately, this will accept `0L' and `0x00' as well.
+     We need to get information from the lexer about how the number
+     was spelled in order to fix this problem.  */
   return integer_zero_node;
 }
 
diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog b/gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog
index 3820b90..d983553 100644
--- a/gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog
+++ b/gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog
@@ -1,3 +1,8 @@
+2005-02-03  Giovanni Bajo  <giovannibajo@gcc.gnu.org>
+
+	PR c++/17401
+	* g++.dg/parse/error25.C: New test.
+
 2005-02-03  Alexandre Oliva  <aoliva@redhat.com>
 
 	* gcc.c-torture/execute/20050203-1.c: New.
diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/parse/error25.C b/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/parse/error25.C
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..a726a17
--- /dev/null
+++ b/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/parse/error25.C
@@ -0,0 +1,16 @@
+// { dg-do compile }
+// Origin: Steven Bosscher <steven at gcc dot gnu dot org>
+// PR c++/17401: ICE with invalid pure specifier
+
+// NOTE: This also tests QoI of diagnostic for invalid pure specifiers.
+//  Please do *not* relax the dg-error tests.
+
+class foo
+{
+  virtual void bar1 () = 0;
+  virtual void bar2 () = __null;  // { dg-error "invalid pure specifier" }
+  virtual void bar3 () = 4;       // { dg-error "invalid pure specifier" }
+  virtual void bar4 () = A::f;    // { dg-error "invalid pure specifier" }
+};
+
+