public inbox for gcc-prs@sourceware.org
help / color / mirror / Atom feed
* Re: c++/2306: access control lost for virtual bases
@ 2003-01-01 23:09 neil
0 siblings, 0 replies; 3+ messages in thread
From: neil @ 2003-01-01 23:09 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs, gcc-prs, nobody, theonetruekenny
Synopsis: access control lost for virtual bases
State-Changed-From-To: analyzed->closed
State-Changed-By: neil
State-Changed-When: Wed Jan 1 15:09:39 2003
State-Changed-Why:
Fixed in 3.4 (3.3 maybe; I don't have one lying around, sorry).
http://gcc.gnu.org/cgi-bin/gnatsweb.pl?cmd=view%20audit-trail&database=gcc&pr=2306
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
* Re: c++/2306: access control lost for virtual bases
@ 2002-10-30 18:16 Wolfgang Bangerth
0 siblings, 0 replies; 3+ messages in thread
From: Wolfgang Bangerth @ 2002-10-30 18:16 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: nobody; +Cc: gcc-prs
The following reply was made to PR c++/2306; it has been noted by GNATS.
From: Wolfgang Bangerth <bangerth@ticam.utexas.edu>
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
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
* c++/2306: access control lost for virtual bases
@ 2001-03-16 11:16 theonetruekenny
0 siblings, 0 replies; 3+ messages in thread
From: theonetruekenny @ 2001-03-16 11:16 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-gnats
>Number: 2306
>Category: c++
>Synopsis: access control lost for virtual bases
>Confidential: no
>Severity: serious
>Priority: medium
>Responsible: unassigned
>State: open
>Class: accepts-illegal
>Submitter-Id: net
>Arrival-Date: Fri Mar 16 11:16:00 PST 2001
>Closed-Date:
>Last-Modified:
>Originator: Kenny Simpson
>Release: gcc version 3.0 20010316 (prerelease)
>Organization:
>Environment:
online compiler
>Description:
GCC seems to forget the access controls for virtual bases.
The current snapshot and 2.95.2 both allow the following
example. Note that without the 'virtual' the code is
rejected as it should be.
>How-To-Repeat:
struct B { void func(){} };
struct D : private virtual B {};
struct DD : public D
{
DD()
: B(), // this should not be visible, but is
D()
{
B::func(); // this also should not be visible, but is
}
};
>Fix:
>Release-Note:
>Audit-Trail:
>Unformatted:
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2003-01-01 23:09 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2003-01-01 23:09 c++/2306: access control lost for virtual bases neil
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2002-10-30 18:16 Wolfgang Bangerth
2001-03-16 11:16 theonetruekenny
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).