Re: [PATCH] c++: implicitly_declare_fn and access checks [PR113908]

2024-02-14 Thread Jason Merrill
On 2/14/24 08:46, Patrick Palka wrote: On Tue, 13 Feb 2024, Jason Merrill wrote: On 2/13/24 11:49, Patrick Palka wrote: Bootstrapped and regtested on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu, are one of both of these fixes OK for trunk? -- >8 -- Here during ahead of time checking of the non-dependent new-expr

Re: [PATCH] c++: implicitly_declare_fn and access checks [PR113908]

2024-02-14 Thread Patrick Palka
On Tue, 13 Feb 2024, Jason Merrill wrote: > On 2/13/24 11:49, Patrick Palka wrote: > > Bootstrapped and regtested on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu, are one of > > both of these fixes OK for trunk? > > > > -- >8 -- > > > > Here during ahead of time checking of the non-dependent new-expr we > > synthesize

Re: [PATCH] c++: implicitly_declare_fn and access checks [PR113908]

2024-02-13 Thread Jason Merrill
On 2/13/24 11:49, Patrick Palka wrote: Bootstrapped and regtested on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu, are one of both of these fixes OK for trunk? -- >8 -- Here during ahead of time checking of the non-dependent new-expr we synthesize B's copy constructor, which should be defined as deleted due to A's

[PATCH] c++: implicitly_declare_fn and access checks [PR113908]

2024-02-13 Thread Patrick Palka
Bootstrapped and regtested on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu, are one of both of these fixes OK for trunk? -- >8 -- Here during ahead of time checking of the non-dependent new-expr we synthesize B's copy constructor, which should be defined as deleted due to A's inaccessible copy constructor. But