accessible in its declaring class; otherwise we might
fail to apply [class.protected] when considering
accessibility in derived classes.
Noticed by inspection; <rdar://13270329>.
I had an existing test wrong. Here's why it's wrong:
Follow the rules (and notation) of [class.access]p5.
The naming class (N) is B and the context (R) is D::getX.
- 'x' as a member of B is protected, but R does not occur
in a member or friend of a class derived from B.
- There does exist a base class of B, A, which is accessible
from R, and 'x' is accessible at R when named in A because
'x' as a member of A is protected and R occurs in a member
of a class, D, that is derived from A; however, by
[class.protected], the class of the object expression must
be equal to or derived from that class, and A does not
derive from D.
llvm-svn: 175858
make sure we walk up the DC chain for the current context,
rather than allowing ourselves to get switched over to the
canonical DC chain. Fixes PR13642.
llvm-svn: 162616
statement starts with an identifier for which name lookup will fail either way,
look at later tokens to disambiguate in order to improve error recovery.
llvm-svn: 162464
things going on here that were problematic:
- We were missing the actual access check, or rather, it was suppressed
on account of being a redeclaration lookup.
- The access check would naturally happen during delay, which isn't
appropriate in this case.
- We weren't actually emitting dependent diagnostics associated with
class templates, which was unfortunate.
- Access was being propagated incorrectly for friend method declarations
that couldn't be matched at parse-time.
llvm-svn: 161652
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
to define a special member function as deleted so that it properly
establishes an object context for the accesses to the base subobject
members.
llvm-svn: 154343
- The [class.protected] restriction is non-trivial for any instance
member, even if the access lacks an object (for example, if it's
a pointer-to-member constant). In this case, it is equivalent to
requiring the naming class to equal the context class.
- The [class.protected] restriction applies to accesses to constructors
and destructors. A protected constructor or destructor can only be
used to create or destroy a base subobject, as a direct result.
- Several places were dropping or misapplying object information.
The standard could really be much clearer about what the object type is
supposed to be in some of these accesses. Usually it's easy enough to
find a reasonable answer, but still, the standard makes a very confident
statement about accesses to instance members only being possible in
either pointer-to-member literals or member access expressions, which
just completely ignores concepts like constructor and destructor
calls, using declarations, unevaluated field references, etc.
llvm-svn: 154248
diagnostic message are compared. If either is a substring of the other, then
no error is given. This gives rise to an unexpected case:
// expect-error{{candidate function has different number of parameters}}
will match the following error messages from Clang:
candidate function has different number of parameters (expected 1 but has 2)
candidate function has different number of parameters
It will also match these other error messages:
candidate function
function has different number of parameters
number of parameters
This patch will change so that the verification string must be a substring of
the diagnostic message before accepting. Also, all the failing tests from this
change have been corrected. Some stats from this cleanup:
87 - removed extra spaces around verification strings
70 - wording updates to diagnostics
40 - extra leading or trailing characters (typos, unmatched parens or quotes)
35 - diagnostic level was included (error:, warning:, or note:)
18 - flag name put in the warning (-Wprotocol)
llvm-svn: 146619
We'd also like for "C++11" or "c++11" to be used for the warning
groups, but without removing the old warning flags. Patches welcome;
I've run out of time to work on this today.
llvm-svn: 141801
that they are C++0x extensions, and put them in the appropriate
group. We already support most of the semantics. Addresses
<rdar://problem/9407525>.
llvm-svn: 131153
I've edited one diagnostic which would print "copy constructor" for copy
constructors and "constructor" for any other constructor. If anyone is
extremely enamored with this, it can be reinstated with a simple boolean
flag rather than calling getSpecialMember, which is inappropriate.
llvm-svn: 131143
the parser will complete the declarator with a valid decl and thus trigger
delayed diagnostics for it. It certainly looks like we were intentionally
returning null here, but I couldn't find any good reason for it, and there
wasn't a comment, so farewell to all that.
llvm-svn: 125556
access-control diagnostics which arise from the portion of the declarator
following the scope specifier, just in case access is granted by
friending the individual method. This can also happen with in-line
member function declarations of class templates due to templated-scope
friend declarations.
We were really playing fast-and-loose before with this sort of thing,
and it turned out to work because *most* friend functions are in file
scope. Making us delay regardless of context exposed several bugs with
how we were manipulating delay. I ended up needing a concept of a
context that's independent of the declarations in which it appears,
and then I actually had to make some things save contexts correctly,
but delay should be much cleaner now.
I also encapsulated all the delayed-diagnostics machinery in a single
subobject of Sema; this is a pattern we might want to consider rolling
out to other components of Sema.
llvm-svn: 125485
Fixes a crash and diagnoses the error condition of an unqualified
friend which doesn't resolve to something. I'm still not certain how
this is useful.
llvm-svn: 116393
restrictions. The note's not really on the right place given its wording,
but putting a second note on the call site (or muddying the wording) doesn't
appeal.
There are corner cases where this can be wrong, but I'm not concerned.
llvm-svn: 112950
an object of type I, if the current access target is protected
when named in a class N, consider the friends of the classes P
where I <= P <= N and where a notional member of N would be
non-forbidden in P.
llvm-svn: 112358
qua templates. The current fix suppresses the access check entirely
in this case; to do better, we'd need to be able to say that a
particular lookup result came from a particular injected class name,
which is not easy to do with the current representation of LookupResult.
This is on my known-problems list.
llvm-svn: 111009
CXXConstructExpr/CXXTemporaryObjectExpr/CXXNewExpr as
appropriate. Fixes PR7556, and provides a slide codegen improvement
when copy-initializing a POD class type from a value-initialized
temporary. Previously, we weren't eliding the copy.
llvm-svn: 107827
Revert much of the implementation of C++98/03 [temp.friend]p5 in
r103943 and its follow-ons r103948 and r103952. While our
implementation was technically correct, other compilers don't seem to
implement this paragraph (which forces the instantiation of friend
functions defined in a class template when a class template
specialization is instantiated), and doing so broke a bunch of Boost
libraries.
Since this behavior has changed in C++0x (which instantiates the
friend function definitions when they are used), we're going to skip
the nowhere-implemented C++98/03 semantics and go straight to the
C++0x semantics.
This commit is a band-aid to get Boost up and running again. It
doesn't really fix PR6952 (which this commit un-fixes), but it does
deal with the way Boost.Units abuses this particular paragraph.
llvm-svn: 104014
within class templates be instantiated along with each class template
specialization, even if the functions are not used. Do so, as a baby
step toward PR6952.
llvm-svn: 103943
member function (default constructor, copy constructor, copy
assignment operator, destructor), emit a note showing where that
implicit definition was required.
llvm-svn: 103619
John McCall