Example:
class A { public: int f(); };
class B : public A { private: using A::f; };
class C : public B { private: using B::f; };
Here, B::f is private so this should fail in Standard C++, but because B::f refers to A::f which is public MSVC accepts it.
This fixes 1 error when parsing MFC code with clang.
llvm-svn: 131896
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
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
by marking the decl invalid isn't. Make some steps towards supporting these
and then hastily shut them down at the last second by marking them as
unsupported.
llvm-svn: 116661
of templated-scope friends by marking them invalid and white-listing all
accesses until such time as we implement them. Fixes a crash, this time
without a broken test case.
llvm-svn: 116364
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
an '&' expression from the second caller of ActOnIdExpression.
Teach template argument deduction that an overloaded id-expression
doesn't give a valid type for deduction purposes to a non-static
member function unless the expression has the correct syntactic
form.
Teach ActOnIdExpression that it shouldn't try to create implicit
member expressions for '&function', because this isn't a
permitted form of use for member functions.
Teach CheckAddressOfOperand to diagnose these more carefully.
Some of these cases aren't reachable right now because earlier
diagnostics interrupt them.
llvm-svn: 112258
This works courtesy of the new SmallVector<..., 0> specialization that
doesn't require a complete type. Note that you'll need to pull at least
SmallVector.h from LLVM to compile successfully.
llvm-svn: 112114
This is more targeted, as it simply provides toggle actions for the parser to
turn access checking on and off. We then use these to suppress access checking
only while we parse the template-id (included scope specifier) of an explicit
instantiation and explicit specialization of a class template. The
specialization behavior is an extension, as it seems likely a defect that the
standard did not exempt them as it does explicit instantiations.
This allows the very common practice of specializing trait classes to work for
private, internal types. This doesn't address instantiating or specializing
function templates, although those apparently already partially work.
The naming and style for the Action layer isn't my favorite, comments and
suggestions would be appreciated there.
llvm-svn: 106993
address of overloaded function, instead of assuming that a nested name
specifier was used. A nested name specifier is not required for static
functions.
Fixes PR6886.
llvm-svn: 102107
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
Douglas Gregor