[Bug c++/51213] New: [C++11][DR 1170] Access control checking has to be done under SFINAE conditions

[Bug c++/51213] New: [C++11][DR 1170] Access control checking has to be done under SFINAE conditions

[daniel.kruegler at googlemail dot com]

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51213

             Bug #: 51213
           Summary: [C++11][DR 1170] Access control checking has to be
                    done under SFINAE conditions
    Classification: Unclassified
           Product: gcc
           Version: 4.7.0
            Status: UNCONFIRMED
          Severity: normal
          Priority: P3
         Component: c++
        AssignedTo: unassigned@gcc.gnu.org
        ReportedBy: daniel.kruegler@googlemail.com
                CC: jason@gcc.gnu.org


gcc 4.7 20111112 (experimental) in C++11 mode rejects the following code:

//---
class C {
  typedef int type; // Line 2
};

template<class T, class = typename T::type>
auto f(int) -> char;

template<class>
auto f(...) -> char (&)[2];

static_assert(sizeof(f<C>(0)) == 2, "Ouch"); // Line 11

template<class T>
auto g(int) -> decltype(typename T::type(), char());

template<class>
auto g(...) -> char (&)[2];

static_assert(sizeof(g<C>(0)) == 2, "Ouch"); // Line 19

int main() {}
//---

"main.cpp|11|error: static assertion failed: "Ouch"|
main.cpp||In function 'decltype ((typename T::type(), char())) g(int) [with T =
C; decltype ((typename T::type(), char())) = char; typename T::type = int]':|
main.cpp|2|error: 'typedef int C::type' is private|
main.cpp|19|error: within this context|
main.cpp|19|error: static assertion failed: "Ouch"|"

After approval of DR 1170:

http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/cwg_defects.html#1170

access checking has become part of the template substitution process as
described in 14.8.2 p8:

"If a substitution results in an invalid type or expression, type deduction
fails. An invalid type or expression is one that would be ill-formed if written
using the substituted arguments. [ Note: Access checking is done as part of the
substitution process. —end note ] [..]"

This means as of C++11 above program should be accepted.

[Bug c++/51213] [C++11][DR 1170] Access control checking has to be done under SFINAE conditions

[paolo.carlini at oracle dot com]

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51213

Paolo Carlini <paolo.carlini at oracle dot com> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |paolo.carlini at oracle dot
                   |                            |com

--- Comment #1 from Paolo Carlini <paolo.carlini at oracle dot com> 2012-04-04 13:55:58 UTC ---
*** Bug 52826 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***

[Bug c++/51213] [C++11][DR 1170] Access control checking has to be done under SFINAE conditions

[paolo.carlini at oracle dot com]

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51213

Paolo Carlini <paolo.carlini at oracle dot com> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|UNCONFIRMED                 |ASSIGNED
   Last reconfirmed|                            |2012-04-20
                 CC|paolo.carlini at oracle dot |
                   |com                         |
         AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot       |paolo.carlini at oracle dot
                   |gnu.org                     |com
   Target Milestone|---                         |4.8.0
     Ever Confirmed|0                           |1

--- Comment #2 from Paolo Carlini <paolo.carlini at oracle dot com> 2012-04-20 02:08:51 UTC ---
I think I can handle this.

[Bug c++/51213] [C++11][DR 1170] Access control checking has to be done under SFINAE conditions

[jyasskin at gcc dot gnu.org]

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51213

--- Comment #3 from Jeffrey Yasskin <jyasskin at gcc dot gnu.org> 2012-04-27 01:31:49 UTC ---
This looks like the root cause. along with r174464, of a regression in C++11
mode from 4.6->4.7 on the following program:


$ cat test.cc
#include <utility>
class Uncopyable {  // 2
  Uncopyable(const Uncopyable&);  // 3
 public:
  Uncopyable() = default;
};
struct ContainsUncopyable {
  std::pair<Uncopyable, int> pv;  // 8
};
void foo() {
  ContainsUncopyable c;  // 11
}
$ ~/gcc-4.6-svn/bin/g++-4.6pre --version
g++-4.6pre (GCC) 4.6.4 20120412 (prerelease)
$ g++-4.6pre -c -std=c++0x test.cc
$ ~/gcc-4.7-svn/bin/g++-4.7pre --version
g++-4.7pre (GCC) 4.7.1 20120412 (prerelease)
$ g++-4.7pre -c -std=c++11 test.cc
.../include/c++/4.7.1/type_traits: In substitution of ‘template<class _From1,
class _To1> static decltype ((__test_aux<_To1>(declval<_From1>()), std::__s
finae_types::__one())) std::__is_convertible_helper<_From, _To,
false>::__test(int) [with _From1 = _From1; _To1 = _To1; _From = const
Uncopyable&; _To = Uncopyable] [with _From1 = const Uncopyable&; _To1 =
Uncopyable]’:
.../include/c++/4.7.1/type_traits:1258:70:   required from ‘constexpr const
bool std::__is_convertible_helper<const Uncopyable&, Uncopyable, false>::valu
e’
.../include/c++/4.7.1/type_traits:1263:12:   required from ‘struct
std::is_convertible<const Uncopyable&, Uncopyable>’
.../include/c++/4.7.1/type_traits:116:12:   required from ‘struct
std::__and_<std::is_convertible<const Uncopyable&, Uncopyable>,
std::is_convertible<con
st int&, int> >’
.../include/c++/4.7.1/bits/stl_pair.h:113:38:   required from here
test.cc:3:3: error: ‘Uncopyable::Uncopyable(const Uncopyable&)’ is private
In file included from .../include/c++/4.7.1/bits/move.h:57:0,
                 from .../include/c++/4.7.1/bits/stl_pair.h:61,
                 from .../include/c++/4.7.1/utility:72,
                 from test.cc:1:
.../include/c++/4.7.1/type_traits:1252:2: error: within this context
...


The workaround is to use =delete instead of access control to create
non-copyable classes in C++11 mode.

[Bug c++/51213] [C++11][DR 1170] Access control checking has to be done under SFINAE conditions

[paolo.carlini at oracle dot com]

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51213

--- Comment #4 from Paolo Carlini <paolo.carlini at oracle dot com> 2012-04-27 09:26:39 UTC ---
Yes, in a few areas the 4.7.x library is much closer to the letter of C++11 in
terms of constraining, and of course we never did access control under sfinae.
Note that the latter, being a new feature, is very likely to happen only in
4.8, but not in 4.7.x, I don't think however we may want to take out
constraining from the 4.7.x library (indeed, people are normally encouraged to
use deleted members, not access control, together with "classic" sfinae)

[Bug c++/51213] [C++11][DR 1170] Access control checking has to be done under SFINAE conditions

[redi at gcc dot gnu.org]

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51213

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

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |maxdebayser at gmail dot
                   |                            |com

--- Comment #5 from Jonathan Wakely <redi at gcc dot gnu.org> 2012-06-20 19:08:41 UTC ---
*** Bug 53734 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***

[Bug c++/51213] [C++11][DR 1170] Access control checking has to be done under SFINAE conditions

[jason at gcc dot gnu.org]

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51213

--- Comment #6 from Jason Merrill <jason at gcc dot gnu.org> 2012-07-19 01:36:55 UTC ---
Author: jason
Date: Thu Jul 19 01:36:50 2012
New Revision: 189639

URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=189639
Log:
    DR 1170
    PR c++/51213
    * semantics.c (perform_access_checks): Add complain parm, return bool.
    (perform_deferred_access_checks): Likewise.
    (perform_or_defer_access_check): Likewise.
    (speculative_access_check): Remove.
    * call.c (enforce_access): Add complain parm, return bool.
    * decl.c, friend.c, class.c, init.c, parser.c: Adjust callers.
    * search.c: Adjust callers.
    * cp-tree.h (TINFO_RECHECK_ACCESS_P): New macro.
    (FNDECL_RECHECK_ACCESS_P): New macro.
    * method.c (synthesized_method_walk): Stop deferring access checks.
    * pt.c (recheck_decl_substitution): New.
    (instantiate_template_1): Set and check FNDECL_RECHECK_ACCESS_P.

Added:
    trunk/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/cpp0x/sfinae37.C
    trunk/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/template/access23.C
    trunk/libstdc++-v3/testsuite/20_util/pair/noncopyable.cc
Modified:
    trunk/gcc/cp/ChangeLog
    trunk/gcc/cp/call.c
    trunk/gcc/cp/class.c
    trunk/gcc/cp/cp-tree.h
    trunk/gcc/cp/decl.c
    trunk/gcc/cp/friend.c
    trunk/gcc/cp/init.c
    trunk/gcc/cp/method.c
    trunk/gcc/cp/parser.c
    trunk/gcc/cp/pt.c
    trunk/gcc/cp/search.c
    trunk/gcc/cp/semantics.c
    trunk/gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog
    trunk/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/template/access7.C
    trunk/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/template/sfinae10.C
    trunk/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/template/sfinae6_neg.C
    trunk/libstdc++-v3/ChangeLog

[Bug c++/51213] [C++11][DR 1170] Access control checking has to be done under SFINAE conditions

[jason at gcc dot gnu.org]

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51213

Jason Merrill <jason at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|ASSIGNED                    |RESOLVED
         Resolution|                            |FIXED

--- Comment #7 from Jason Merrill <jason at gcc dot gnu.org> 2012-07-19 02:05:00 UTC ---
Fixed for 4.8.

[Bug c++/51213] [C++11][DR 1170] Access control checking has to be done under SFINAE conditions

[daniel.kruegler at googlemail dot com]

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51213

Daniel Krügler <daniel.kruegler at googlemail dot com> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|RESOLVED                    |REOPENED
         Resolution|FIXED                       |

--- Comment #8 from Daniel Krügler <daniel.kruegler at googlemail dot com> 2012-07-23 21:01:09 UTC ---
I agree that the actual test examples work now, but I also found that only
*slight* variations of the call context of the test expression
"sizeof(f<C>(0))" again lead to access errors. The following variants
demonstrate this:

//---
class C {
  typedef int type; // Line 2
};

template<class T, class = typename T::type>
auto f(int) -> char;

template<class>
auto f(...) -> char (&)[2];

static_assert(sizeof(f<C>(0)) == 2, ""); // OK

typedef int test[sizeof(f<C>(0)) == 2 ? 1 : -1]; // Error

template<int>
struct I {};

I<sizeof(f<C>(0))> i; // Error

enum E { e1 = sizeof(f<C>(0)) }; // Error
//---

"13|error: size of array 'test' is negative|
2|error: 'typedef int C::type' is private|
5|error: within this context|
2|error: 'typedef int C::type' is private|
18|error: within this context|
2|error: 'typedef int C::type' is private|
5|error: within this context|
"

Jason suggested to reopen the issue, so I did.

[Bug c++/51213] [C++11][DR 1170] Access control checking has to be done under SFINAE conditions

[paolo.carlini at oracle dot com]

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51213

--- Comment #9 from Paolo Carlini <paolo.carlini at oracle dot com> 2012-07-23 23:35:42 UTC ---
Weird indeed, thanks Daniel. Tomorrow I will have a look and either will send a
patch or will post an analysis (if I will get stuck).

[Bug c++/51213] [C++11][DR 1170] Access control checking has to be done under SFINAE conditions

[paolo.carlini at oracle dot com]

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51213

--- Comment #10 from Paolo Carlini <paolo.carlini at oracle dot com> 2012-07-24 10:34:56 UTC ---
So, first we have a typo at pt.c:6142:

      orig_arg = make_typename_type (TREE_OPERAND (arg, 0),
                     TREE_OPERAND (arg, 1),
                     typename_type,
                     complain & tf_error);

the fourth argument must be just complain. Let's see if we have more ;)

[Bug c++/51213] [C++11][DR 1170] Access control checking has to be done under SFINAE conditions

[paolo at gcc dot gnu.org]

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51213

--- Comment #11 from paolo at gcc dot gnu.org <paolo at gcc dot gnu.org> 2012-08-02 18:45:04 UTC ---
Author: paolo
Date: Thu Aug  2 18:44:58 2012
New Revision: 190093

URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=190093
Log:
/cp
2012-08-02  Jason Merrill  <jason@redhat.com>
        Paolo Carlini  <paolo.carlini@oracle.com>

    PR c++/51213 (again)
    * pt.c (type_unification_real): Call push_deferring_access_checks /
    pop_deferring_access_checks around the substitution of default
    template args.
    (instantiate_template_1): When the specialization returned by
    retrieve_specialization has FNDECL_HAS_ACCESS_ERRORS set and we
    are in a SFINAE context, simply return error_mark_node.
    * cp-tree.h (FNDECL_RECHECK_ACCESS_P): Rename FNDECL_HAS_ACCESS_ERRORS.

/testsuite
2012-08-02  Jason Merrill  <jason@redhat.com>
        Paolo Carlini  <paolo.carlini@oracle.com>

    PR c++/51213 (again)
    * g++.dg/cpp0x/sfinae37.C: Extend.

Modified:
    trunk/gcc/cp/ChangeLog
    trunk/gcc/cp/cp-tree.h
    trunk/gcc/cp/pt.c
    trunk/gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog
    trunk/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/cpp0x/sfinae37.C

[Bug c++/51213] [C++11][DR 1170] Access control checking has to be done under SFINAE conditions

[paolo.carlini at oracle dot com]

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51213

Paolo Carlini <paolo.carlini at oracle dot com> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|REOPENED                    |RESOLVED
         Resolution|                            |FIXED

--- Comment #12 from Paolo Carlini <paolo.carlini at oracle dot com> 2012-08-02 19:37:23 UTC ---
I guess we can close again.

[Bug c++/51213] [C++11][DR 1170] Access control checking has to be done under SFINAE conditions

[jason at gcc dot gnu.org]

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51213

--- Comment #13 from Jason Merrill <jason at gcc dot gnu.org> 2012-08-25 03:30:16 UTC ---
Author: jason
Date: Sat Aug 25 03:30:11 2012
New Revision: 190664

URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=190664
Log:
    PR c++/51213 (again)
    * pt.c (deduction_tsubst_fntype): Remove.
    (fn_type_unification): Check deduction depth and call
    instantiate_template here.  Handle default argument access checks.
    (determine_specialization): Suppress access control.
    (tsubst_decl): Check for excessive deduction depth.
    (recheck_decl_substitution): Make sure access control is on.
    (type_unification_real): Don't mess with access deferring here.
    (get_bindings): Adjust for fn_type_unification return type.
    * call.c (enum rejection_reason_code): Drop rr_template_instantiation.
    (template_instantiation_rejection): Remove.
    (struct rejection_reason): Change targs to num_targs.
    (template_unification_rejection, print_z_candidate): Adjust.
    (add_template_candidate_real): Adjust for fn_type_unification change.
    * class.c (resolve_address_of_overloaded_function): Likewise.
    * cp-tree.h: Adjust declaration.

Added:
    trunk/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/cpp0x/fntmpdefarg3.C
Modified:
    trunk/gcc/cp/ChangeLog
    trunk/gcc/cp/call.c
    trunk/gcc/cp/class.c
    trunk/gcc/cp/cp-tree.h
    trunk/gcc/cp/pt.c

[Bug c++/51213] [C++11][DR 1170] Access control checking has to be done under SFINAE conditions

[markus at trippelsdorf dot de]

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51213

Markus Trippelsdorf <markus at trippelsdorf dot de> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |markus at trippelsdorf dot
                   |                            |de

--- Comment #14 from Markus Trippelsdorf <markus at trippelsdorf dot de> 2012-08-31 12:57:07 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #13)
> Author: jason
> Date: Sat Aug 25 03:30:11 2012
> New Revision: 190664
> 
> URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=190664
> Log:
>     PR c++/51213 (again)

This revision causes Bug 54437.

[Bug c++/51213] [C++11][DR 1170] Access control checking has to be done under SFINAE conditions

[jason at gcc dot gnu.org]

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51213

--- Comment #15 from Jason Merrill <jason at gcc dot gnu.org> 2012-09-04 18:50:03 UTC ---
Author: jason
Date: Tue Sep  4 18:49:51 2012
New Revision: 190946

URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=190946
Log:
    PR c++/54437
    PR c++/51213
    * pt.c (fn_type_unification): Call coerce_template_parms before
    entering substitution context.

Added:
    trunk/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/template/access24.C
Modified:
    trunk/gcc/cp/ChangeLog
    trunk/gcc/cp/pt.c
    trunk/gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog

[Bug c++/51213] [C++11][DR 1170] Access control checking has to be done under SFINAE conditions

[w.shane.grant at gmail dot com]

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51213

Shane <w.shane.grant at gmail dot com> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |w.shane.grant at gmail dot com

--- Comment #16 from Shane <w.shane.grant at gmail dot com> ---
I think some variant of this bug may still exist (using g++ (Ubuntu
4.8.1-2ubuntu1~13.04) 4.8.1).  The following code will fail to compile under
g++ but will correctly compile under a recent version of clang++ (3.3).

template <class T>
T && declval();

template <class T>
constexpr auto hasSize(int) -> decltype(declval<T&>().size(), bool())
{ return true; }

template <class T>
constexpr bool hasSize(...)
{ return false; }

struct A
{
  int size();
};

struct B : private A
{
};

static_assert(hasSize<A>(0),  "A");
static_assert(!hasSize<B>(0), "B");

int main() {}

The error produced is:

test.cpp: In substitution of ‘template<class T> constexpr decltype
((declval<T&>().size(), bool())) hasSize(int) [with T = B]’:
test.cpp:22:28:   required from here
test.cpp:5:61: error: ‘A’ is not an accessible base of ‘B’
 constexpr auto hasSize(int) -> decltype(declval<T&>().size(), bool())
                                                             ^
test.cpp: In substitution of ‘template<class T> constexpr decltype
((declval<T&>().size(), bool())) hasSize(int) [with T = B]’:
test.cpp:22:28:   required from here
test.cpp:5:61: error: ‘A’ is not an accessible base of ‘B’
>From gcc-bugs-return-424942-listarch-gcc-bugs=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org Sun Jun 23 20:38:19 2013
Return-Path: <gcc-bugs-return-424942-listarch-gcc-bugs=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Delivered-To: listarch-gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Received: (qmail 6240 invoked by alias); 23 Jun 2013 20:38:19 -0000
Mailing-List: contact gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <gcc-bugs.gcc.gnu.org>
List-Archive: <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-bugs/>
List-Post: <mailto:gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org>
Sender: gcc-bugs-owner@gcc.gnu.org
Delivered-To: mailing list gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Received: (qmail 6211 invoked by uid 48); 23 Jun 2013 20:38:16 -0000
From: "janus at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug fortran/57639] [OOP] ICE with polymorphism (and illegal code)
Date: Sun, 23 Jun 2013 20:38:00 -0000
X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC
X-Bugzilla-Type: changed
X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None
X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc
X-Bugzilla-Component: fortran
X-Bugzilla-Version: 4.9.0
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: ice-on-invalid-code
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: janus at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Status: ASSIGNED
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: janus at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: ---
X-Bugzilla-Flags:
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields:
Message-ID: <bug-57639-4-xgUUA1IYza@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-57639-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-57639-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-SW-Source: 2013-06/txt/msg01321.txt.bz2
Content-length: 207

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?idW639

--- Comment #4 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to janus from comment #3)
> The following patch fixes both variants:

... and regtests cleanly.

[Bug c++/51213] [C++11][DR 1170] Access control checking has to be done under SFINAE conditions

[paolo.carlini at oracle dot com]

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51213

--- Comment #17 from Paolo Carlini <paolo.carlini at oracle dot com> ---
But this example works in mainline (would be 4.9.0) and I don't think it's a
regression.

[Bug c++/51213] [C++11][DR 1170] Access control checking has to be done under SFINAE conditions

[mizvekov at gmail dot com]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51213

Matheus Izvekov <mizvekov at gmail dot com> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |mizvekov at gmail dot com

--- Comment #18 from Matheus Izvekov <mizvekov at gmail dot com> ---
Created attachment 33776
  --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=33776&action=edit
CWG 1170 test case

Compile with "g++ -std=c++11 -DPUB=0 test.cc" and it should print 'false'
Compile with "g++ -std=c++11 -DPUB=1 test.cc" and it should print 'true'.

Instead, GCC 4.9.1 prints true in both cases.

[Bug c++/51213] [C++11][DR 1170] Access control checking has to be done under SFINAE conditions

[mizvekov at gmail dot com]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51213

--- Comment #19 from Matheus Izvekov <mizvekov at gmail dot com> ---
CWG 1170 is still not correctly implemented as of gcc 4.9.1

The attached test shows just this.

Compile it with
"g++ -std=c++11 -DPUB=0 test.cc" and
"g++ -std=c++11 -DPUB=1 test.cc".

The one with PUB=0 should print 'false', while the one with PUB=1 should print
'true'.

The test works as expected with clang 3.5.

[Bug c++/51213] [C++11][DR 1170] Access control checking has to be done under SFINAE conditions

[paolo.carlini at oracle dot com]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51213

--- Comment #20 from Paolo Carlini <paolo.carlini at oracle dot com> ---
This is already fixed in mainline, though. I'm adding the testcase.

[Bug c++/51213] [C++11][DR 1170] Access control checking has to be done under SFINAE conditions

[paolo.carlini at oracle dot com]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51213

--- Comment #21 from Paolo Carlini <paolo.carlini at oracle dot com> ---
As a matter of fact, I can't reproduce the issue with 4.9.1.

[Bug c++/51213] [C++11][DR 1170] Access control checking has to be done under SFINAE conditions

[mizvekov at gmail dot com]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51213

--- Comment #22 from Matheus Izvekov <mizvekov at gmail dot com> ---
Apologies, it was a problem on my end!
The fault was just clang and gcc having different default binary names on msys,
'a.out' vs 'a.exe', and me using a stale exe when testing gcc...
Sorry!