[cfe-commits] r154924 - in /cfe/trunk: lib/Sema/SemaAccess.cpp test/Parser/MicrosoftExtensions.cpp
rjmccall at apple.com
Tue Apr 17 13:04:27 CDT 2012
On Apr 17, 2012, at 5:35 AM, Francois Pichet wrote:
> Author: fpichet
> Date: Tue Apr 17 07:35:05 2012
> New Revision: 154924
> URL: http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project?rev=154924&view=rev
> Emulate a MSVC bug where the creation of pointer-to-member to protected member of base class is allowed but only from a static function.
> This fixes a regression when parsing MFC code with clang.
> Modified: cfe/trunk/lib/Sema/SemaAccess.cpp
> URL: http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project/cfe/trunk/lib/Sema/SemaAccess.cpp?rev=154924&r1=154923&r2=154924&view=diff
> --- cfe/trunk/lib/Sema/SemaAccess.cpp (original)
> +++ cfe/trunk/lib/Sema/SemaAccess.cpp Tue Apr 17 07:35:05 2012
> @@ -779,6 +779,13 @@
> // that the naming class has to be derived from the effective
> // context.
> + // Emulate a MSVC bug where the creation of pointer-to-member
> + // to protected member of base class is allowed but only from
> + // a static function.
> + if (S.getLangOpts().MicrosoftMode && !EC.Functions.empty() &&
> + EC.Functions.front()->getStorageClass() == SC_Static)
> + return AR_accessible;
You should really be testing whether this is a non-instance
CXXMethodDecl; right now this will trigger on namespace-level
static functions. I guess you should try different combinations in MSVC
and see what makes it trigger.
Also, when I suggested this, I was assuming this could reasonably be
discussed as a dialect difference. This just sounds like a bug. Did we
definitely decide to emulate MSVC bug-for-bug? If this is blocking some
system header, we might want to target the fix more narrowly at that
specific code — we actually have some similar workarounds for
emulating GCC bugs in specific system headers.
More information about the cfe-commits