From 71eb0b9ec35acd4843115354a94be4dcb150f7af Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Alexandre Oliva <oliva@dcc.unicamp.br>
Date: Fri, 4 Dec 1998 11:31:32 +0000
Subject: [PATCH] * g++.old-deja/g++.pt/spec20.C: Re-insert non-bogus ERROR
 marks.

From-SVN: r24089
---
 gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog                    | 4 ++++
 gcc/testsuite/g++.old-deja/g++.pt/spec20.C | 9 ++++++---
 2 files changed, 10 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)

diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog b/gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog
index 79357f0173b..40b8f697e74 100644
--- a/gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog
+++ b/gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog
@@ -1,3 +1,7 @@
+1998-12-04  Alexandre Oliva  <oliva@dcc.unicamp.br>
+
+	* g++.old-deja/g++.pt/spec20.C: Re-insert non-bogus ERROR marks.
+
 1998-12-03  Alexandre Oliva  <oliva@dcc.unicamp.br>
 
 	* g++.old-deja/g++.pt/overload8.C: New test.
diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/g++.old-deja/g++.pt/spec20.C b/gcc/testsuite/g++.old-deja/g++.pt/spec20.C
index 9cef7030a53..c6b699d9411 100644
--- a/gcc/testsuite/g++.old-deja/g++.pt/spec20.C
+++ b/gcc/testsuite/g++.old-deja/g++.pt/spec20.C
@@ -1,13 +1,16 @@
 // Build don't link:
 
-// According to [temp.class.spec.mfunc]/2, these are valid
+// According to the non-normative example in
+// [temp.class.spec.mfunc]/2, these should be valid, but the grammar
+// in the Standard does not allow partial nor full specializations as
+// member-declarations, so we'd better not support them.
 
 template <class T> 
 struct S {
   template <class U> void f(U);
-  template <> void f<int>(int); // gets bogus error - XFAIL *-*-*
+  template <> void f<int>(int); // ERROR - invalid specialization
 
   template <class V> struct I {};
   template <class V> struct I<V*> {};
-  template <> struct I<int>; // gets bogus error - XFAIL *-*-*
+  template <> struct I<int>; // ERROR - invalid specialization
 };
-- 
2.30.2