diff options
| -rw-r--r-- | clang/lib/Sema/SemaAccess.cpp | 6 | ||||
| -rw-r--r-- | clang/test/SemaCXX/aggregate-initialization.cpp | 68 |
2 files changed, 71 insertions, 3 deletions
diff --git a/clang/lib/Sema/SemaAccess.cpp b/clang/lib/Sema/SemaAccess.cpp index e9772bc5204..4bca280824b 100644 --- a/clang/lib/Sema/SemaAccess.cpp +++ b/clang/lib/Sema/SemaAccess.cpp @@ -1670,8 +1670,12 @@ Sema::AccessResult Sema::CheckConstructorAccess(SourceLocation UseLoc, // Initializing a base sub-object is an instance method call on an // object of the derived class. Otherwise, we have an instance method // call on an object of the constructed type. + // + // FIXME: If we have a parent, we're initializing the base class subobject + // in aggregate initialization. It's not clear whether the object class + // should be the base class or the derived class in that case. CXXRecordDecl *ObjectClass; - if (Entity.getKind() == InitializedEntity::EK_Base) { + if (Entity.getKind() == InitializedEntity::EK_Base && !Entity.getParent()) { ObjectClass = cast<CXXConstructorDecl>(CurContext)->getParent(); } else { ObjectClass = NamingClass; diff --git a/clang/test/SemaCXX/aggregate-initialization.cpp b/clang/test/SemaCXX/aggregate-initialization.cpp index 4e4177463f8..ddaf33fc1bf 100644 --- a/clang/test/SemaCXX/aggregate-initialization.cpp +++ b/clang/test/SemaCXX/aggregate-initialization.cpp @@ -1,4 +1,6 @@ // RUN: %clang_cc1 -fsyntax-only -verify -std=c++11 %s +// RUN: %clang_cc1 -fsyntax-only -verify -std=c++14 %s +// RUN: %clang_cc1 -fsyntax-only -verify -std=c++1z %s // Verify that using an initializer list for a non-aggregate looks for // constructors.. @@ -11,7 +13,7 @@ struct NonAggr1 { // expected-note 2 {{candidate constructor}} }; struct Base { }; -struct NonAggr2 : public Base { // expected-note 3 {{candidate constructor}} +struct NonAggr2 : public Base { // expected-note 0-3 {{candidate constructor}} int m; }; @@ -25,9 +27,15 @@ struct NonAggr4 { // expected-note 3 {{candidate constructor}} }; NonAggr1 na1 = { 17 }; // expected-error{{no matching constructor for initialization of 'NonAggr1'}} -NonAggr2 na2 = { 17 }; // expected-error{{no matching constructor for initialization of 'NonAggr2'}} +NonAggr2 na2 = { 17 }; NonAggr3 na3 = { 17 }; // expected-error{{no matching constructor for initialization of 'NonAggr3'}} NonAggr4 na4 = { 17 }; // expected-error{{no matching constructor for initialization of 'NonAggr4'}} +#if __cplusplus <= 201402L +// expected-error@-4{{no matching constructor for initialization of 'NonAggr2'}} +#else +// expected-error@-6{{requires explicit braces}} +NonAggr2 na2b = { {}, 17 }; // ok +#endif // PR5817 typedef int type[][2]; @@ -82,3 +90,59 @@ public: }; AggAgg aggagg = { 1, 2, 3, 4 }; + +namespace diff_cpp14_dcl_init_aggr_example { + struct derived; + struct base { + friend struct derived; + private: + base(); + }; + struct derived : base {}; + + derived d1{}; +#if __cplusplus > 201402L + // expected-error@-2 {{private}} + // expected-note@-7 {{here}} +#endif + derived d2; +} + +namespace ProtectedBaseCtor { + // FIXME: It's unclear whether f() and g() should be valid in C++1z. What is + // the object expression in a constructor call -- the base class subobject or + // the complete object? + struct A { + protected: + A(); + }; + + struct B : public A { + friend B f(); + friend B g(); + friend B h(); + }; + + B f() { return {}; } +#if __cplusplus > 201402L + // expected-error@-2 {{protected default constructor}} + // expected-note@-12 {{here}} +#endif + + B g() { return {{}}; } +#if __cplusplus <= 201402L + // expected-error@-2 {{no matching constructor}} + // expected-note@-15 3{{candidate}} +#else + // expected-error@-5 {{protected default constructor}} + // expected-note@-21 {{here}} +#endif + + B h() { return {A{}}; } +#if __cplusplus <= 201402L + // expected-error@-2 {{no matching constructor}} + // expected-note@-24 3{{candidate}} +#endif + // expected-error@-5 {{protected constructor}} + // expected-note@-30 {{here}} +} |
