c++/8931: g++ 3.2 fails to enforce access rules

c++/8931: g++ 3.2 fails to enforce access rules

[sebor]

>Number:         8931
>Category:       c++
>Synopsis:       g++ 3.2 fails to enforce access rules
>Confidential:   no
>Severity:       serious
>Priority:       medium
>Responsible:    unassigned
>State:          open
>Class:          sw-bug
>Submitter-Id:   net
>Arrival-Date:   Fri Dec 13 12:16:01 PST 2002
>Closed-Date:
>Last-Modified:
>Originator:     sebor@roguewave.com
>Release:        3.2
>Organization:
>Environment:

>Description:
gcc 3.2 still fails to diagnose the violation of member access rules. This was first reported for 2.95.2 and diagnosed by Martin v. Loewis in Dec '99 as a known parser problem.

Regards
Martin

$ cat t.cpp; g++ --version; g++ -c t.cpp                                                             

template <class T>
struct S
{
    typedef typename T::Private X;
};


template <class T>
class C {
    typedef T Private;
};


template class S<C<int> >;

g++ (GCC) 3.2
Copyright (C) 2002 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
This is free software; see the source for copying conditions.  There is NO
warranty; not even for MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
>How-To-Repeat:

>Fix:

>Release-Note:
>Audit-Trail:
>Unformatted:

Re: c++/8931: g++ 3.2 fails to enforce access rules

[Gabriel Dos Reis]

The following reply was made to PR c++/8931; it has been noted by GNATS.

From: Gabriel Dos Reis <gdr@integrable-solutions.net>
To: Wolfgang Bangerth <bangerth@ticam.utexas.edu>
Cc: gcc@gcc.gnu.org, <gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org>, <sebor@roguewave.com>,
   <gcc-gnats@gcc.gnu.org>
Subject: Re: c++/8931: g++ 3.2 fails to enforce access rules
Date: 13 Dec 2002 22:31:13 +0100

 Wolfgang Bangerth <bangerth@ticam.utexas.edu> writes:
 
 | - given the really *large* number of open bug reports, I think the scarce
 |   bug fixing resources gcc has serve the community better in the long term
 |   if we let them focus on 3.3, rather than spending time backporting 
 |   fixes. This way we might get 3.3 out earlier, which will certainly be 
 |   better than any 3.2.2.
 
 I'm not suggesting people spend their time backporting every
 imaginable patch that happens to fix some bug on mainline.  There are
 bug-fix patches that don't need any particular action than running
 patch + regtesting.  I'm obvisouly talking of such patches.
 
 I doubt we'll get 3.3 earlier just because we refuse to apply the same
 patch (we do know passes regtesting) on mainline and branch.  
 
 Or we could just make it clear that 3.2 branch is dead and have people
 not  bothering about it.  That way, we could expect people focus
 mainly on 3.3:  That would have the effect of saving any effort on 3.2
 branch and make user clearly know that they should not expect anything
 about 3.2.2.  That way, we could perhaps have 3.3 earlier.  It would
 certainly be better than 3.2.2 since the latter would be non-existent.
 
 -- Gaby

Re: c++/8931: g++ 3.2 fails to enforce access rules

[Wolfgang Bangerth]

The following reply was made to PR c++/8931; it has been noted by GNATS.

From: Wolfgang Bangerth <bangerth@ticam.utexas.edu>
To: Gabriel Dos Reis <gdr@integrable-solutions.net>
Cc: gcc@gcc.gnu.org, <gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org>, <sebor@roguewave.com>,
   <gcc-gnats@gcc.gnu.org>
Subject: Re: c++/8931: g++ 3.2 fails to enforce access rules
Date: Fri, 13 Dec 2002 15:17:17 -0600 (CST)

 > | Synopsis: g++ 3.2 fails to enforce access rules
 > | State-Changed-From-To: open->closed
 > |     Since it is not a regression, it is not going to be fixed
 > |     in any 3.2.* and there is no value in keeping this report
 > |     open.
 > 
 > It would be really helpful if non-invasive bug fixes could make it to
 > branch when it is not frozen.
 > 
 > Setting the bar to only regression fixes is, IMHO, too high and
 > renders the dot releases less useful and less attractive.  Indeed,
 > I've seen lot of PRs being closed on the basis that they are fixed on
 > mainline and since they are not regressions they won't be fixed in
 > 3.2.x.  The net effect is that people would have to wait for some (long)
 > undeterminated time before they had a compiler that fixes the bugs,
 > and meanwhile we will be releasing compilers that could include
 > those patches.  
 
 I think I even concur, I am just executing the policies that have been 
 set. However, in the discussion I would like some points to be kept in 
 mind:
 - if there are too many open reports in the database, it is difficult to
   manage and very annoying when one re-visits reports that are "half-open" 
   every so often. You do realize that we presently have about 1800 (!)
   non-closed reports and that it is easy to lose yourself into this 
   amount, right?
 - given the really *large* number of open bug reports, I think the scarce
   bug fixing resources gcc has serve the community better in the long term
   if we let them focus on 3.3, rather than spending time backporting 
   fixes. This way we might get 3.3 out earlier, which will certainly be 
   better than any 3.2.2.
 - if we allow other patches into the branch, it needs more testing; the 
   thing with limited resources applies here as well.
 - someone will have to find the patch that fixed it on the mainline.
 
 For this particular case I don't know how invasive the fix might be, so I 
 can't comment on its impact on stability of the branch. 
 
 W.
 
 -------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Wolfgang Bangerth              email:           bangerth@ticam.utexas.edu
                                www: http://www.ticam.utexas.edu/~bangerth
 
 

Re: c++/8931: g++ 3.2 fails to enforce access rules

[Gabriel Dos Reis]

The following reply was made to PR c++/8931; it has been noted by GNATS.

From: Gabriel Dos Reis <gdr@integrable-solutions.net>
To: bangerth@dealii.org
Cc: gcc@gcc.gnu.org, gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org, sebor@roguewave.com,
   gcc-gnats@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: Re: c++/8931: g++ 3.2 fails to enforce access rules
Date: 13 Dec 2002 22:01:37 +0100

 bangerth@dealii.org writes:
 
 | Synopsis: g++ 3.2 fails to enforce access rules
 | 
 | State-Changed-From-To: open->closed
 | State-Changed-By: bangerth
 | State-Changed-When: Fri Dec 13 12:49:13 2002
 | State-Changed-Why:
 |     Present mainline gives
 |     tmp/g> /home/bangerth/bin/gcc-3.3-pre/bin/c++ -c x.cc
 |     x.cc: In instantiation of `S<C<int> >':
 |     x.cc:14:   instantiated from here
 |     x.cc:10: error: `typedef int C<int>::Private' is private
 |     x.cc:4: error: within this context
 |     
 |     Since it is not a regression, it is not going to be fixed
 |     in any 3.2.* and there is no value in keeping this report
 |     open.
 
 It would be really helpful if non-invasive bug fixes could make it to
 branch when it is not frozen.
 
 Setting the bar to only regression fixes is, IMHO, too high and
 renders the dot releases less useful and less attractive.  Indeed,
 I've seen lot of PRs being closed on the basis that they are fixed on
 mainline and since they are not regressions they won't be fixed in
 3.2.x.  The net effect is that people would have to wait for some (long)
 undeterminated time before they had a compiler that fixes the bugs,
 and meanwhile we will be releasing compilers that could include
 those patches.  
 
 My two cents.
 
 -- Gaby

Re: c++/8931: g++ 3.2 fails to enforce access rules

[bangerth]

Synopsis: g++ 3.2 fails to enforce access rules

State-Changed-From-To: open->closed
State-Changed-By: bangerth
State-Changed-When: Fri Dec 13 12:49:13 2002
State-Changed-Why:
    Present mainline gives
    tmp/g> /home/bangerth/bin/gcc-3.3-pre/bin/c++ -c x.cc
    x.cc: In instantiation of `S<C<int> >':
    x.cc:14:   instantiated from here
    x.cc:10: error: `typedef int C<int>::Private' is private
    x.cc:4: error: within this context
    
    Since it is not a regression, it is not going to be fixed
    in any 3.2.* and there is no value in keeping this report
    open.

http://gcc.gnu.org/cgi-bin/gnatsweb.pl?cmd=view%20audit-trail&database=gcc&pr=8931