[llvm] [clang-tools-extra] [clang] [clang] Add test for CWG472 (PR #67948)
@@ -2871,7 +2871,7 @@ C++ defect report implementation status https://cplusplus.github.io/CWG/issues/472.html;>472 drafting Casting across protected inheritance -Not resolved +No cor3ntin wrote: > For `"no drafting" status, can we say something different here? I think > something like "Not resolved, probably no" would be better, given that we > don't actually know what the resolution will be, and if it ends up resolved > NAD then we actually do implement it correctly :-) I think that would make sense. Any opinion @AaronBallman ? https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/67948 ___ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
[llvm] [clang-tools-extra] [clang] [clang] Add test for CWG472 (PR #67948)
@@ -2871,7 +2871,7 @@ C++ defect report implementation status https://cplusplus.github.io/CWG/issues/472.html;>472 drafting Casting across protected inheritance -Not resolved +No Endilll wrote: Current state of things is my fault (I was the one who introduced `no open`, `no drafting`, and `no review` statuses). I've been pondering on a different idea recently: `No*`, and a pop-up saying something along the lines of `Tentative; issue hasn't been resolved yet`. Like cppreference does in their compiler support table. Seems less heavy for such a big table, but still provides details for those who are interested. Another idea is for `No` to be a link to an issue on bug tracker instead of a pop-up. It also worth mentioning that `make_cxx_dr_status` is strict with those unresolved statuses, and it yells every time status in a test doesn't match status in `cwg_index.html`. https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/67948 ___ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
[clang-tools-extra] [llvm] [clang] [clang] Add test for CWG472 (PR #67948)
@@ -2871,7 +2871,7 @@ C++ defect report implementation status https://cplusplus.github.io/CWG/issues/472.html;>472 drafting Casting across protected inheritance -Not resolved +No zygoloid wrote: For `"no drafting" status, can we say something different here? I think something like "Not resolved, probably no" would be better, given that we don't actually know what the resolution will be, and if it ends up resolved NAD then we actually do implement it correctly :-) https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/67948 ___ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
[clang-tools-extra] [llvm] [clang] [clang] Add test for CWG472 (PR #67948)
zygoloid wrote: > None of the implementations seem to agree with the resolution of the DR: > https://godbolt.org/z/a7nEvW5Gr Yeah, I think this is a case where the wording is clear and everyone implements it, but it doesn't actually do the right thing. The example in the issue "ought to be" ill-formed, because as the issue points out, there's no reason to think that the N object is actually a base subobject of P, so access to its protected base B shouldn't be granted to a P object. I think a rule even more similar to [class.protected] should be implemented: if we rely on a conversion from a class `N` to a class `B`, if `N` is a protected base class of `B` (if a public member of `B` would be a protected member of `N`), then additionally require that `N` is either `C` or a class derived from `C` (where `C` is the class granting access, as in [class.protected]). I'd suggest we implement that as a warning, given that the standard is clear and other implementers accept. In any case, this new testcase looks good to me, and would be good to add regardless of what CWG ends up deciding here (if they ever make a decision...). https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/67948 ___ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
[clang-tools-extra] [llvm] [clang] [clang] Add test for CWG472 (PR #67948)
cor3ntin wrote: After additional archeology, I found the following minutes from Portland , 2012 > Core issue 472: Casting across protected inheritance > _ Would the example work if P2 derived privately from N2? > _ ... Yes.. Hm, that was a good point. > redrafting. Given that, I'd rather we don't try to read the tea leaves. If we think this is important enough to fix, we should ping CWG. But there seems to be some consistency across implementations, so I think we should punt work on this issue. @zygoloid https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/67948 ___ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
[clang] [clang] Add test for CWG472 (PR #67948)
Endilll wrote: > None of the implementations seem to agree with the resolution of the DR: > https://godbolt.org/z/a7nEvW5Gr It's definitely not the first time CWG goes against every major implementation with their DR resolution. https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/67948 ___ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
[clang] [clang] Add test for CWG472 (PR #67948)
https://github.com/shafik commented: None of the implementations seem to agree with the resolution of the DR: https://godbolt.org/z/a7nEvW5Gr https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/67948 ___ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
[clang] [clang] Add test for CWG472 (PR #67948)
cor3ntin wrote: CC @zygoloid In the proposed resolution, i do not understand why `B* bp = n2p;` should be ill-formed by virtue of being declared in `P2` https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/67948 ___ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
[clang] [clang] Add test for CWG472 (PR #67948)
https://github.com/Endilll edited https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/67948 ___ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
[clang] [clang] Add test for CWG472 (PR #67948)
llvmbot wrote:
@llvm/pr-subscribers-clang
Changes
https://cplusplus.github.io/CWG/issues/472.html
It has drafting status, but I think CWG has reached consesus on the behavior.
---
Full diff: https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/67948.diff
2 Files Affected:
- (modified) clang/test/CXX/drs/dr4xx.cpp (+17)
- (modified) clang/www/cxx_dr_status.html (+1-1)
``diff
diff --git a/clang/test/CXX/drs/dr4xx.cpp b/clang/test/CXX/drs/dr4xx.cpp
index d8bdf49d0b2dde7..cc12e9f158061f8 100644
--- a/clang/test/CXX/drs/dr4xx.cpp
+++ b/clang/test/CXX/drs/dr4xx.cpp
@@ -924,6 +924,23 @@ namespace dr471 { // dr471: yes
struct H : B, G { int f() { return n; } }; // expected-error {{private}}
}
+namespace dr472 { // dr472: no drafting
+struct B {
+ int i; // #dr472-i-decl
+};
+struct I : protected B {}; // #dr472-inheritance
+struct D : public I {
+ void f(I *ip) {
+ip->i = 0;
+// expected-error@-1{{'i' is a protected member of
'dr472::B'}}
+// expected-note@#dr472-inheritance {{constrained by protected inheritance
here}}
+// expected-note@#dr472-i-decl {{member is declared here}}
+B *bp = ip;
+bp->i = 5;
+ }
+};
+}
+
namespace dr474 { // dr474: yes
namespace N {
struct S {
diff --git a/clang/www/cxx_dr_status.html b/clang/www/cxx_dr_status.html
index ee9712e9bab9949..b02f7ccfd371411 100755
--- a/clang/www/cxx_dr_status.html
+++ b/clang/www/cxx_dr_status.html
@@ -2871,7 +2871,7 @@ C++ defect report implementation
status
https://cplusplus.github.io/CWG/issues/472.html;>472
drafting
Casting across protected inheritance
-Not resolved
+No
https://cplusplus.github.io/CWG/issues/473.html;>473
``
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/67948
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
[clang] [clang] Add test for CWG472 (PR #67948)
https://github.com/Endilll created
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/67948
https://cplusplus.github.io/CWG/issues/472.html
It has drafting status, but I think CWG has reached consesus on the behavior.
>From ad0df2131e12c59e57b603b955626e27e3067505 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Vlad Serebrennikov
Date: Mon, 2 Oct 2023 08:12:56 +0300
Subject: [PATCH] [clang] Add test for CWG472
---
clang/test/CXX/drs/dr4xx.cpp | 17 +
clang/www/cxx_dr_status.html | 2 +-
2 files changed, 18 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/clang/test/CXX/drs/dr4xx.cpp b/clang/test/CXX/drs/dr4xx.cpp
index d8bdf49d0b2dde7..cc12e9f158061f8 100644
--- a/clang/test/CXX/drs/dr4xx.cpp
+++ b/clang/test/CXX/drs/dr4xx.cpp
@@ -924,6 +924,23 @@ namespace dr471 { // dr471: yes
struct H : B, G { int f() { return n; } }; // expected-error {{private}}
}
+namespace dr472 { // dr472: no drafting
+struct B {
+ int i; // #dr472-i-decl
+};
+struct I : protected B {}; // #dr472-inheritance
+struct D : public I {
+ void f(I *ip) {
+ip->i = 0;
+// expected-error@-1{{'i' is a protected member of
'dr472::B'}}
+// expected-note@#dr472-inheritance {{constrained by protected inheritance
here}}
+// expected-note@#dr472-i-decl {{member is declared here}}
+B *bp = ip;
+bp->i = 5;
+ }
+};
+}
+
namespace dr474 { // dr474: yes
namespace N {
struct S {
diff --git a/clang/www/cxx_dr_status.html b/clang/www/cxx_dr_status.html
index ee9712e9bab9949..b02f7ccfd371411 100755
--- a/clang/www/cxx_dr_status.html
+++ b/clang/www/cxx_dr_status.html
@@ -2871,7 +2871,7 @@ C++ defect report implementation
status
https://cplusplus.github.io/CWG/issues/472.html;>472
drafting
Casting across protected inheritance
-Not resolved
+No
https://cplusplus.github.io/CWG/issues/473.html;>473
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
