replica
/
hanchenye-llvm-project
2
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull Requests Projects Releases Wiki Activity

Fix crash in access check for aggregate initialization of base classes. It's 

not obvious how to access-check these, so pick a conservative rule until we get
feedback from CWG.

llvm-svn: 262966
This commit is contained in:
Richard Smith 2016-03-08 23:17:35 +00:00
parent 6365e46459
commit bbbe618467
2 changed files with 71 additions and 3 deletions
Show Stats Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files

6
clang/lib/Sema/SemaAccess.cpp
View File

@ -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;

68
clang/test/SemaCXX/aggregate-initialization.cpp
View File

@ -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}}
}