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
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
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
Remove -faccess-control from -cc1; add -fno-access-control.
Make the driver pass -fno-access-control by default.
Update a bunch of tests to be correct under access control.
llvm-svn: 100880
that protected members be used on objects of types which derive from the
naming class of the lookup. My first N attempts at this were poorly-founded,
largely because the standard is very badly worded here.
llvm-svn: 100562
John McCall