We have a new policy in place making links to private resources
something we try to avoid in source and test files. Normally, we'd
organically switch to the new policy rather than make a sweeping change
across a project. However, Clang is in a somewhat special circumstance
currently: recently, I've had several new contributors run into rdar
links around test code which their patch was changing the behavior of.
This turns out to be a surprisingly bad experience, especially for
newer folks, for a handful of reasons: not understanding what the link
is and feeling intimidated by it, wondering whether their changes are
actually breaking something important to a downstream in some way,
having to hunt down strangers not involved with the patch to impose on
them for help, accidental pressure from asking for potentially private
IP to be made public, etc. Because folks run into these links entirely
by chance (through fixing bugs or working on new features), there's not
really a set of problematic links to focus on -- all of the links have
basically the same potential for causing these problems. As a result,
this is an omnibus patch to remove all such links.
This was not a mechanical change; it was done by manually searching for
rdar, radar, radr, and other variants to find all the various
problematic links. From there, I tried to retain or reword the
surrounding comments so that we would lose as little context as
possible. However, because most links were just a plain link with no
supporting context, the majority of the changes are simple removals.
Differential Review: https://reviews.llvm.org/D158071
class to the declaring class in a class member access.
This check does not appear to be backed by any rule in the standard (the
rule in question was likely removed over the years), and only ever
produces duplicate diagnostics. (It's also not meaningful because there
isn't a unique declaring class after the resolution of core issue 39.)
accessible in its declaring class; otherwise we might
fail to apply [class.protected] when considering
accessibility in derived classes.
Noticed by inspection; <rdar://13270329>.
I had an existing test wrong. Here's why it's wrong:
Follow the rules (and notation) of [class.access]p5.
The naming class (N) is B and the context (R) is D::getX.
- 'x' as a member of B is protected, but R does not occur
in a member or friend of a class derived from B.
- There does exist a base class of B, A, which is accessible
from R, and 'x' is accessible at R when named in A because
'x' as a member of A is protected and R occurs in a member
of a class, D, that is derived from A; however, by
[class.protected], the class of the object expression must
be equal to or derived from that class, and A does not
derive from D.
llvm-svn: 175858
make sure we walk up the DC chain for the current context,
rather than allowing ourselves to get switched over to the
canonical DC chain. Fixes PR13642.
llvm-svn: 162616
base-class subojects.
Incidentally, thinking about virtual bases makes it clear to me that
we're not appropriately computing the access to the virtual base's
member because we're not computing the best possible access to the
virtual base at all; in fact, we're basically assuming it's public.
I'll file a separate PR about that.
llvm-svn: 154346
to define a special member function as deleted so that it properly
establishes an object context for the accesses to the base subobject
members.
llvm-svn: 154343
- The [class.protected] restriction is non-trivial for any instance
member, even if the access lacks an object (for example, if it's
a pointer-to-member constant). In this case, it is equivalent to
requiring the naming class to equal the context class.
- The [class.protected] restriction applies to accesses to constructors
and destructors. A protected constructor or destructor can only be
used to create or destroy a base subobject, as a direct result.
- Several places were dropping or misapplying object information.
The standard could really be much clearer about what the object type is
supposed to be in some of these accesses. Usually it's easy enough to
find a reasonable answer, but still, the standard makes a very confident
statement about accesses to instance members only being possible in
either pointer-to-member literals or member access expressions, which
just completely ignores concepts like constructor and destructor
calls, using declarations, unevaluated field references, etc.
llvm-svn: 154248
restrictions. The note's not really on the right place given its wording,
but putting a second note on the call site (or muddying the wording) doesn't
appeal.
There are corner cases where this can be wrong, but I'm not concerned.
llvm-svn: 112950
an object of type I, if the current access target is protected
when named in a class N, consider the friends of the classes P
where I <= P <= N and where a notional member of N would be
non-forbidden in P.
llvm-svn: 112358
Remove -faccess-control from -cc1; add -fno-access-control.
Make the driver pass -fno-access-control by default.
Update a bunch of tests to be correct under access control.
llvm-svn: 100880
that protected members be used on objects of types which derive from the
naming class of the lookup. My first N attempts at this were poorly-founded,
largely because the standard is very badly worded here.
llvm-svn: 100562
