[llvm] [clang-tools-extra] [clang] [clang] Add test for CWG472 (PR #67948)

@@ -2871,7 +2871,7 @@ C++ defect report implementation status https://cplusplus.github.io/CWG/issues/472.html;>472 drafting Casting across protected inheritance -Not resolved +No cor3ntin wrote: > For `"no drafting" status, can we say

[llvm] [clang-tools-extra] [clang] [clang] Add test for CWG472 (PR #67948)

@@ -2871,7 +2871,7 @@ C++ defect report implementation status https://cplusplus.github.io/CWG/issues/472.html;>472 drafting Casting across protected inheritance -Not resolved +No Endilll wrote: Current state of things is my fault (I was

[clang-tools-extra] [llvm] [clang] [clang] Add test for CWG472 (PR #67948)

@@ -2871,7 +2871,7 @@ C++ defect report implementation status https://cplusplus.github.io/CWG/issues/472.html;>472 drafting Casting across protected inheritance -Not resolved +No zygoloid wrote: For `"no drafting" status, can we say

[clang-tools-extra] [llvm] [clang] [clang] Add test for CWG472 (PR #67948)

zygoloid wrote: > None of the implementations seem to agree with the resolution of the DR: > https://godbolt.org/z/a7nEvW5Gr Yeah, I think this is a case where the wording is clear and everyone implements it, but it doesn't actually do the right thing. The example in the issue "ought to be"

[clang-tools-extra] [llvm] [clang] [clang] Add test for CWG472 (PR #67948)

cor3ntin wrote: After additional archeology, I found the following minutes from Portland , 2012 > Core issue 472: Casting across protected inheritance > _ Would the example work if P2 derived privately from N2? > _ ... Yes.. Hm, that was a good point. > redrafting. Given that, I'd rather we

[clang] [clang] Add test for CWG472 (PR #67948)

Endilll wrote: > None of the implementations seem to agree with the resolution of the DR: > https://godbolt.org/z/a7nEvW5Gr It's definitely not the first time CWG goes against every major implementation with their DR resolution. https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/67948

[clang] [clang] Add test for CWG472 (PR #67948)

https://github.com/shafik commented: None of the implementations seem to agree with the resolution of the DR: https://godbolt.org/z/a7nEvW5Gr https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/67948 ___ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org

[clang] [clang] Add test for CWG472 (PR #67948)

cor3ntin wrote: CC @zygoloid In the proposed resolution, i do not understand why `B* bp = n2p;` should be ill-formed by virtue of being declared in `P2` https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/67948 ___ cfe-commits mailing list

[clang] [clang] Add test for CWG472 (PR #67948)

https://github.com/Endilll edited https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/67948 ___ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits

[clang] [clang] Add test for CWG472 (PR #67948)

llvmbot wrote: @llvm/pr-subscribers-clang Changes https://cplusplus.github.io/CWG/issues/472.html It has drafting status, but I think CWG has reached consesus on the behavior. --- Full diff: https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/67948.diff 2 Files Affected: - (modified)

[clang] [clang] Add test for CWG472 (PR #67948)

https://github.com/Endilll created https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/67948 https://cplusplus.github.io/CWG/issues/472.html It has drafting status, but I think CWG has reached consesus on the behavior. >From ad0df2131e12c59e57b603b955626e27e3067505 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Vlad