Author: Richard Smith Date: 2020-12-16T12:01:00-08:00 New Revision: 735ab86b811e40f1533ced98dfc4b7a0c09c545b
URL: https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/commit/735ab86b811e40f1533ced98dfc4b7a0c09c545b DIFF: https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/commit/735ab86b811e40f1533ced98dfc4b7a0c09c545b.diff LOG: PR47474: Add test for Clang's current behavior. Our current behavior rejects the example, following the current language rules, but it's likely the rules will be revised to allow this example. Added: Modified: clang/test/SemaCXX/cxx2a-destroying-delete.cpp Removed: ################################################################################ diff --git a/clang/test/SemaCXX/cxx2a-destroying-delete.cpp b/clang/test/SemaCXX/cxx2a-destroying-delete.cpp index 015d11e65526..46e5228ec6be 100644 --- a/clang/test/SemaCXX/cxx2a-destroying-delete.cpp +++ b/clang/test/SemaCXX/cxx2a-destroying-delete.cpp @@ -141,3 +141,29 @@ namespace templated { void operator delete(typename id_struct<D>::type *, std::destroying_delete_t); // expected-error {{use 'D<T> *'}} }; } + +namespace dtor_access { + struct S { + void operator delete(S *p, std::destroying_delete_t); + private: + ~S(); // expected-note {{here}} + }; + + // FIXME: PR47474: GCC accepts this, and it seems somewhat reasonable to + // allow, even though [expr.delete]p12 says this is ill-formed. + void f() { delete new S; } // expected-error {{calling a private destructor}} + + struct T { + void operator delete(T *, std::destroying_delete_t); + protected: + virtual ~T(); // expected-note {{here}} + }; + + struct U : T { + void operator delete(void *); + private: + ~U() override; + }; + + void g() { delete (T *)new U; } // expected-error {{calling a protected destructor}} +} _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
