On Wed, Dec 18, 2013 at 7:09 PM, Reid Kleckner <[email protected]> wrote:
> I also don't like having to emit LLVM IR for this program:
>
> class A { ~A() {} };
> struct B : A { };
> void foo(B b) { }
>
> Any call to foo would be an error, but if we just turn off the access
> check, we'll generate code for B's deleted dtor, which is really, really
> weird.
>
We're still calling DiagnoseUseOfDecl, so we'll still reject this (in
C++11, where the dtor is deleted).
> On Wed, Dec 18, 2013 at 6:38 PM, David Majnemer
> <[email protected]>wrote:
>
>> I don't think we should elide these checks. This would lead us to behave
>> differently than MSVC inside of SFINAE contexts.
>>
>> Sent from my phone.
>>
>>
>> On Wednesday, December 18, 2013, Hans Wennborg wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> The problem is that MarkFunctionReferenced does access checks as it
>>> marks functions as referenced. This makes perfect sense, except here when
>>> we want to be able to call the dtor but bypass the access check.
>>>
>>> Richard: it would be interesting to hear your thoughts on this. Is the
>>> added plumbing of this boolean variable through the various functions an
>>> acceptable approach? Would it be ok to avoid that with some mechanism to
>>> "trap" access check errors (maybe a flag on Sema)? Or is it not worth the
>>> hassle to change this?
>>>
>>> http://llvm-reviews.chandlerc.com/D2409
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> cfe-commits mailing list
>>> [email protected]
>>> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
>>>
>>
>
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
