On Wed, Nov 29, 2023 at 01:58:31PM -0500, Jason Merrill wrote:
> On 11/29/23 10:45, Marek Polacek wrote:
> > Bootstrapped/regtested on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu, ok for trunk?
> >
> > Now that I'm posting this patch, I think you'll probably want me to use
> > ba_any unconditionally. That works too; g++.dg/tc1/dr52.C just needs
> > a trivial testsuite tweak:
> > 'C' is not an accessible base of 'X'
> > v.
> > 'C' is an inaccessible base of 'X'
> > We should probably unify those messages...
>
> Hmm, won't using ba_any unconditionally break ambiguous base checking for
> non-static data members?
Yes. I thought not but that's only because we weren't properly testing
that case (added scoped14.C, patch to follow). So that settles that.
> > @@ -3493,9 +3493,24 @@ finish_class_member_access_expr (cp_expr object,
> > tree name, bool template_p,
> > return error_mark_node;
> > }
> > + /* NAME may refer to a static data member, in which case there is
> > + one copy of the data member that is shared by all the objects of
> > + the class. So NAME can be unambiguously referred to even if
> > + there are multiple indirect base classes containing NAME. */
> > + const base_access ba = [scope, name] ()
>
> Why a lambda?
Only so that I can set 'ba' once and make it const. I don't believe it
deserves a named function. It seems more readable than using a ?:.
> > + {
> > + if (identifier_p (name))
> > + {
> > + tree m = lookup_member (scope, name, /*protect=*/0,
> > + /*want_type=*/false, tf_none);
> > + if (!m || VAR_P (m))
>
> Do you want shared_member_p here?
That looks like the right thing to use, thanks.
Marek
