From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: by sourceware.org (Postfix, from userid 48)
	id F005F38582A0; Fri, 26 Aug 2022 15:19:48 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org F005F38582A0
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org;
	s=default; t=1661527188;
	bh=HgV5S8WD8UV40SkHRkPH2LDGVovQsFsNHUgPsneRhyc=;
	h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From;
	b=xZRmRohbQD0TCAdioz1SDyGDPtfXXaXUDKIxAZ60aCU7YtfKpJ3UXguVdhBthavcZ
	 Jr0lcNtqpzZZmq+oUeHhSXuhHnn0m2srFHysYtG4k7Lljvl/rvQFzmv2d9CKyuoN3l
	 bWkaHcoUyfRkRCHsthAbIgUtG+qhp4fJJYJZIHHk=
From: "redi at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug c++/106756] Overbroad friendship for nested classes
Date: Fri, 26 Aug 2022 15:19:47 +0000
X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC
X-Bugzilla-Type: changed
X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None
X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc
X-Bugzilla-Component: c++
X-Bugzilla-Version: 13.0
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: accepts-invalid
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: redi at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Status: UNCONFIRMED
X-Bugzilla-Resolution: 
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: ---
X-Bugzilla-Flags: 
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: cc keywords
Message-ID: <bug-106756-4-9JgVyySlN3@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-106756-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-106756-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
MIME-Version: 1.0
List-Id: <gcc-bugs.sourceware.org>

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D106756

Jonathan Wakely <redi at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |jason at gcc dot gnu.org
           Keywords|                            |accepts-invalid

--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely <redi at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
Started to be accepted with Jason's r13-465:

    c++: hidden friend access [DR1699]

    It has come up several times that Clang considers hidden friends of a c=
lass
    to be sufficiently memberly to be covered by a friend declaration naming
the
    class.  This is somewhat unclear in the standard: [class.friend] says
    "Declaring a class to be a friend implies that private and protected
members
    of the class granting friendship can be named in the base-specifiers and
    member declarations of the befriended class."

    A hidden friend is a syntactic member-declaration, but is it a "member
    declaration"?  CWG was ambivalent, and referred the question to EWG as a
    design choice.  But recently Patrick mentioned that the current G++ cho=
ice
    not to treat it as a "member declaration" was making his library work
    significantly more cumbersome, so let's go ahead and vote the other way.

    This means that the testcases for 100502 and 58993 are now accepted.

            DR1699
            PR c++/100502
            PR c++/58993

    gcc/cp/ChangeLog:

            * friend.cc (is_friend): Hidden friends count as members.
            * search.cc (friend_accessible_p): Likewise.=