My original patch missed the virtual-base case for destroying

base-class subojects.

Incidentally, thinking about virtual bases makes it clear to me that
we're not appropriately computing the access to the virtual base's
member because we're not computing the best possible access to the
virtual base at all;  in fact, we're basically assuming it's public.
I'll file a separate PR about that.

llvm-svn: 154346

clang/lib/Sema/SemaDeclCXX.cpp

@@ -3356,7 +3356,7 @@ Sema::MarkBaseAndMemberDestructorsReferenced(SourceLocation Location,
        E = ClassDecl->vbases_end(); VBase != E; ++VBase) {
 
     // Bases are always records in a well-formed non-dependent class.
-    const RecordType *RT = VBase->getType()->getAs<RecordType>();
+    const RecordType *RT = VBase->getType()->castAs<RecordType>();
 
     // Ignore direct virtual bases.
     if (DirectVirtualBases.count(RT))
@@ -3373,7 +3373,8 @@ Sema::MarkBaseAndMemberDestructorsReferenced(SourceLocation Location,
     assert(Dtor && "No dtor found for BaseClassDecl!");
     CheckDestructorAccess(ClassDecl->getLocation(), Dtor,
                           PDiag(diag::err_access_dtor_vbase)
-                            << VBase->getType());
+                            << VBase->getType(),
+                          Context.getTypeDeclType(ClassDecl));
 
     MarkFunctionReferenced(Location, const_cast<CXXDestructorDecl*>(Dtor));
     DiagnoseUseOfDecl(Dtor, Location);

clang/test/CXX/class.access/class.protected/p1.cpp

@@ -501,3 +501,19 @@ namespace test15 {
     }
   };
 }
+
+namespace test16 {
+  class A {
+  protected:
+    ~A();
+  };
+
+  class B : public virtual A {
+  public:
+    ~B() {}
+  };
+
+  class C : public B {
+    ~C() {}
+  };
+}