https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20397
--- Comment #19 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Manuel López-Ibáñez from comment #18)
> (In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #17)
> > FWIW for the original testcase G++ now says:
> >
> > a.cc:9:8: error: ‘class A A::A’ is inaccessible
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20397
--- Comment #18 from Manuel López-Ibáñez ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #17)
> FWIW for the original testcase G++ now says:
>
> a.cc:9:8: error: ‘class A A::A’ is inaccessible within this context
> int c(A *a) { return 7; }
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20397
--- Comment #17 from Jonathan Wakely ---
FWIW for the original testcase G++ now says:
a.cc:9:8: error: ‘class A A::A’ is inaccessible within this context
int c(A *a) { return 7; }
^
a.cc:1:9: note: declared here
class A {
^
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20397
--- Comment #16 from Manuel López-Ibáñez 2011-10-21
07:57:59 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #9)
> I am reopening as an enhancement request because all this discussion could be
> better summarized in the error message (in particular, the part about
--- Comment #15 from redi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-03-05 18:36 ---
And the "recent changes" happened ~10 years ago. The language had already
changed before that, but the example you referred to had not been updated. That
was an accidental omission.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla
--- Comment #14 from redi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-03-05 18:34 ---
(In reply to comment #13)
> (in reply to comment #12)
>
> Yes I am referring to the standard.
The 1998 standard has been superseded by the 2003 TC1, and that will soon be
replaced too. "The standard" includes the re
--- Comment #13 from s dot franke at bebbosoft dot de 2010-03-05 17:52
---
(in reply to comment #12)
Yes I am referring to the standard.
C++ std 1998:
class A { };
class B: private A { };
class C: public B {
A* p;// ok: A accessible
};
recent changes (som
--- Comment #12 from redi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-03-05 11:01 ---
Are you looking at the original 1998 standard?
Please see http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/cwg_defects.html#142
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20397
--- Comment #11 from s dot franke at bebbosoft dot de 2010-03-05 07:14
---
(in reply to comment #8)
> As stated before, if you don't want the locally injected name, use
> ::A instead.
There is no injected name. Using a base class does not declare anything or
inject a name.
Making a ba
--- Comment #10 from s dot franke at bebbosoft dot de 2010-03-05 07:06
---
this is an example from the official C++ Standard which should be used as test
case, "11.2 Accessibility of base classes and base class members":
class B {
public:
int mi; // nonstatic member
sta
--- Comment #9 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-03-04 18:29 ---
I am reopening as an enhancement request because all this discussion could be
better summarized in the error message (in particular, the part about A being
injected in B and being private).
clang has a "fixit/extra inf
11 matches
Mail list logo
