public inbox for gcc-bugs@sourceware.org help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "redi at gcc dot gnu dot org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org> To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug c++/19377] New: Using declaration in "private" part causes "protected" diagnostic Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2005 16:25:00 -0000 [thread overview] Message-ID: <20050111161422.19377.redi@gcc.gnu.org> (raw) Given this code: class A { protected: int i; }; class B : public A { private: using A::i; }; class C : public B { public: void f() { A::i = 0; } }; g++ 3.4 and 4.0 say: protinherit.cc: In member function 'void C::f()': protinherit.cc:5: error: 'int A::i' is protected protinherit.cc:15: error: within this context (It actually prints the message twice, but that's PR 19375) The diagnostic says A::i is protected, but surely if it was protected it would be accessible in C, since C is derived from A ? Also, the using declaration is in the private section of B, so again, it can't be protected, can it? Should the diagnostic actually say "A::i is private in this context" or "A::i is inaccessible in this context" ? Even if that's the right diagnostic for this behaviour, is the behaviour right? Does that using directive change the access of i ? It makes sense to me that if C refers to the member as A::i it should have access. Accessing B::i might fail, but A::i should be OK ... shouldn't it? I can't see anything in the standard that says whether using decls can be used to _reduce_ access, the closest is at the end of [namespace.udecl] which says: The alias created by the using-declaration has the usual accessibility for a member-declaration. That would imply B::i is private. I'm not sure what "alias" means in that context but it implies to me that A::i is still public. Every version of GCC I have since 2.95 behaves the same and rejects the code, but como says it is OK. I've not added the rejects-valid keyword as I'm not sure it should be there. FWIW, if the access of i in A is changed from protected to public, the diagnostic says A::i is "inaccessible" not "protected". So that diagnostic is right, given GCC's behaviour - but there's still the question of whether the behaviour's right. -- Summary: Using declaration in "private" part causes "protected" diagnostic Product: gcc Version: 4.0.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Keywords: diagnostic Severity: normal Priority: P2 Component: c++ AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org ReportedBy: redi at gcc dot gnu dot org CC: gcc-bugs at gcc dot gnu dot org http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19377
next reply other threads:[~2005-01-11 16:25 UTC|newest] Thread overview: 4+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top 2005-01-11 16:25 redi at gcc dot gnu dot org [this message] 2005-01-11 17:08 ` [Bug c++/19377] " pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-12 10:46 ` lerdsuwa at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-05-01 3:34 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
Reply instructions: You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email using any one of the following methods: * Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client, and reply-to-all from there: mbox Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style * Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to switches of git-send-email(1): git send-email \ --in-reply-to=20050111161422.19377.redi@gcc.gnu.org \ --to=gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org \ --cc=gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org \ /path/to/YOUR_REPLY https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html * If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header via mailto: links, try the mailto: linkBe sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox; as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).