From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 20299 invoked by alias); 31 Oct 2002 02:16:02 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-prs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-prs-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 20272 invoked by uid 71); 31 Oct 2002 02:16:01 -0000 Date: Wed, 30 Oct 2002 18:16:00 -0000 Message-ID: <20021031021601.20271.qmail@sources.redhat.com> To: nobody@gcc.gnu.org Cc: gcc-prs@gcc.gnu.org, From: Wolfgang Bangerth Subject: Re: c++/2306: access control lost for virtual bases Reply-To: Wolfgang Bangerth X-SW-Source: 2002-10/txt/msg01309.txt.bz2 List-Id: The following reply was made to PR c++/2306; it has been noted by GNATS. From: Wolfgang Bangerth To: gcc-gnats@gcc.gnu.org Cc: Subject: Re: c++/2306: access control lost for virtual bases Date: Wed, 30 Oct 2002 20:12:04 -0600 (CST) Just for the record: the first access to the constructor of the base class must be ok, since terminal classes are responsible for initialization of virtual bases. Of course, allowing the second access is bogus. Regards Wolfgang ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Wolfgang Bangerth email: bangerth@ticam.utexas.edu www: http://www.ticam.utexas.edu/~bangerth