* typename1.C, typename2.C: New tests.

From-SVN: r27945

gcc/testsuite/g++.old-deja/g++.oliva/ChangeLog

@@ -1,5 +1,7 @@
 1999-07-05  Alexandre Oliva  <oliva@dcc.unicamp.br>
 
+	* typename1.C, typename2.C: New tests.
+
 	* template3.C: Fixed.
 
 	* ns3.C: New test.

gcc/testsuite/g++.old-deja/g++.oliva/typename1.C

@@ -0,0 +1,19 @@
+// Build don't link:
+
+// Copyright (C) 1999 Free Software Foundation
+
+// by Alexandre Oliva <oliva@dcc.unicamp.br>
+// based on bug report by Nick Rasmussen <nick@jive.org>
+
+// crash test - XFAIL *-*-*
+
+template <class T> struct foo;
+
+template <class T> struct bar {
+  typedef int foo;
+};
+
+template <class T> struct baz {
+  typedef bar<T>::foo foo; // ERROR - missing typename
+  void m(foo);
+};

gcc/testsuite/g++.old-deja/g++.oliva/typename2.C

@@ -0,0 +1,28 @@
+// Build don't link:
+// Special g++ Options:
+
+// Copyright (C) 1999 Free Software Foundation
+
+// by Alexandre Oliva <oliva@dcc.unicamp.br>
+// based on bug report by Nick Rasmussen <nick@jive.org>
+
+// This is slightly different from typename1.C.  This one tests
+// whether the implicit typename extension works.  gcc 2.95 reports:
+
+// warning: lookup of `foo' finds `struct foo'
+// warning:   instead of `baz<T>::foo' from dependent base class
+// warning:   (use `typename baz::foo' if that's what you meant)
+
+// But baz<T>::foo is not a base class, and `foo' should have been
+// found in baz's scope.
+
+struct foo;
+
+template <class T> struct bar {
+  typedef int foo;
+};
+
+template <class T> struct baz {
+  typedef bar<T>::foo foo; // ERROR - implicit typename - XFAIL *-*-*
+  void m(foo); // gets bogus error - dependent base class - XFAIL *-*-*
+};