On 1/22/21 3:07 PM, Anthony Sharp wrote:
Hi Jason,
Thanks for getting back to me so quickly.
> Why two gcc-comit-mklog? That would generate the log entries twice.
It did in fact generate the log entries twice, but I deleted out the
second copy. Perhaps it would have made more sense to do git commit
--amend instead.
> Instead of making access_in_type non-static, let's defiine
> get_parent_with_private_access in search.c and declare it in cp-tree.h
> (with the declarations of nearby search.c functions).
Done.
> Only one 'n' in inaccessible.
Oops!
Subsequent lines of a comment should be indented to line up with the
first line. This applies to all your multi-line comments.
My bad, hopefully fixed now.
Don't change the indentation of these blocks; in the GNU coding style
the { } are indented two spaces from the if.
I think I see what you mean; I forgot to indent the { } (and therefore
also everything within it, by two spaces). Hopefully fixed.
The new line of arguments should be indented to line up with the
first one.
Fixed I think.
Please find attached the latest patch version with all these changes.
git gcc-verify returns no problems and check_GNU_style.sh returns only
false positives. Source builds fine. To be super safe I re-cloned the
source and did git apply with the patch and it built and worked just
fine, and hopefully I haven't missed anything.
Thanks again for your help.
Subject: [PATCH] This patch fixes PR17314. Previously, when class C attempted
to access member a declared in class A through class B, where class B
privately inherits from A and class C inherits from B, GCC would correctly
report an access violation, but would erroneously report that the reason was
because a was "protected", when in fact, from the point of view of class C,
it was really "private". This patch updates the diagnostics code to generate
more correct errors in cases of failed inheritance such as these.
The first line of the commit message should be the subject line for the
patch, i.e. "c++: private inheritance access diagnostics fix [PR17314]",
then a blank line, then the rationale.
+ if (parent_binfo != NULL_TREE
+ && context_for_name_lookup (decl)
+ != BINFO_TYPE (parent_binfo))
Here you want parens around the second != expression and its != token
aligned with "context"
+ complain_about_access (decl, diag_decl, diag_location, true,
+ parent_access);
...
+ complain_about_access (afi.get_decl (), afi.get_diag_decl (),
+ afi.get_diag_decl (), false, ak_none);
In both these calls, the second line is indented one space too far.
Jason
