[cfe-dev] More Vexing Than the Most Vexing Parse; Clang Parser Bug?

[Seth Cantrell]

I'm trying to figure out against whom to file a bug.

This code is parsed differently between Clang, VC++, Comeau, and GCC.

struct A {
    A() {}
    A(int) {}
};

struct B : A {
    void init(int i);
};

void B::init(int i) {
  {
    A::A(i); // what is this supposed to parse as?
  }
}

int main() {
    B b;
    b.init(2);
}

Clang and an earlier version of GCC parse it a variable declaration, Comeau and current gcc parse it as an illegal constructor call (but since it's illegal is that constructor really "an acceptable lookup result" according to §3.4.3.1/2?), and VC++ seems to parse it as constructing a temporary (which it seems hard to fathom how because if A::A is a constructor name then it's not legal to call and does not 'return' a temporary object, but if A::A is a type name then this is a variable declaration).  

I'm asking as a result of the discussion at http://stackoverflow.com/questions/11423380/why-are-redundant-class-name-qualifiers-allowed