[RFA] Fix c++/14819 (implicit this)

[Tom Tromey]

>>>>> "Keith" == Keith Seitz <keiths@redhat.com> writes:

Keith> I'm not entirely sure it is possible to actually get EVAL_SKIP
Keith> here (EVAL_AVOID_SIDE_EFFECTS is handled already), but I've
Keith> changed it to "bail" if we see anything other than EVAL_NORMAL.

Yeah.  Ideally I think we wouldn't let EVAL_* escape eval.c.  Not your
problem though.

Keith> So I've added a new function, find_type_baseclass_by_name which
Keith> searches the base classes of the given type for a base class of the
Keith> given name. Calling this in classify_inner_name in the appropriate
Keith> places "makes everything work." (TM)

This seems like a fine idea to me.

Keith> +      /* cp_lookup_nested_symbol might have accidentally found a constructor
Keith> +	 named COPY when we really wanted a base class of the same name.
Keith> +	 Double-check this case by looking for a base class.  */
Keith> +      {
Keith> +	struct type *base_type = find_type_baseclass_by_name (type, copy);
Keith> +
Keith> +	if (base_type != NULL)
Keith> +	  {
Keith> +	    yylval.tsym.type = base_type;
Keith> +	    return TYPENAME;
Keith> +	  }

I wonder what happens here if you actually do want the constructor.
Like "print B::B".  Will it still find the baseclass?

Keith> +/* Search through the base classes of PARENT_TYPE for a base class
Keith> +   named NAME and return its type.  If not found, return NULL.  */
Keith> +
Keith> +struct type *
Keith> +find_type_baseclass_by_name (struct type *parent_type, const char *name)
Keith> +{
Keith> +  int i;
Keith> +
Keith> +  for (i = 0; i < TYPE_N_BASECLASSES (parent_type); ++i)

Probably this function requires check_typedef sprinkled liberally
around.

Keith> +    {
Keith> +      struct type *type = TYPE_BASECLASS (parent_type, i);
Keith> +      const char *base_name = TYPE_BASECLASS_NAME (parent_type, i);
Keith> +
Keith> +      if (base_name == NULL)
Keith> +	continue;
Keith> +
Keith> +      if (streq (base_name, name))
Keith> +	return type;

It is possible to have ambiguous base classes?
And if so, where is that diagnosed?

Another horrible thought is what does "this->typedef_name::field" mean?
Anything?  What is typedef_name is a typedef for one of the base classes?

Keith> +gdb_test "print D::i" "Cannot reference non-static field \"i\""

Keith> +gdb_test "print D::i" "= 4"

Duplicated test names.
I think there are more than one.
It's fine to just wrap the sequences in with_test_prefix though.

Tom