From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 2663 invoked by alias); 15 Apr 2012 17:11:01 -0000 Received: (qmail 2653 invoked by uid 22791); 15 Apr 2012 17:11:00 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-4.3 required=5.0 tests=ALL_TRUSTED,AWL,BAYES_00,KHOP_THREADED X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from localhost (HELO gcc.gnu.org) (127.0.0.1) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Sun, 15 Apr 2012 17:10:47 +0000 From: "manu at gcc dot gnu.org" To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug c++/19377] Using declaration in "private" part causes "protected" diagnostic Date: Sun, 15 Apr 2012 17:11:00 -0000 X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC X-Bugzilla-Type: changed X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc X-Bugzilla-Component: c++ X-Bugzilla-Keywords: diagnostic, rejects-valid X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal X-Bugzilla-Who: manu at gcc dot gnu.org X-Bugzilla-Status: ASSIGNED X-Bugzilla-Priority: P2 X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: fabien at gcc dot gnu.org X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: --- X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: CC Message-ID: In-Reply-To: References: X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/ Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Mailing-List: contact gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-bugs-owner@gcc.gnu.org X-SW-Source: 2012-04/txt/msg01187.txt.bz2 http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D19377 Manuel L=C3=B3pez-Ib=C3=A1=C3=B1ez changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |manu at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #5 from Manuel L=C3=B3pez-Ib=C3=A1=C3=B1ez 2012-04-15 17:09:04 UTC --- (In reply to comment #4) >=20 > The problem seems to be that we do not have the information that 'i' is > referenced through 'this' when checking the access in accessible_p, unles= s I'm > missing something. >=20 > Any idea where to find this information ? You should write to Jason directly, as he is probably the only person in the world that understands the C++ FE well enough to answer this. (And am I the only one who thinks this is REALLY bad for the future of g++?)