http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52136
Jackie Rosen jackie.rosen at hushmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52136
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-02-06
13:40:08 UTC ---
EDG and Solaris CC also accept it, clang doesn't
The code looks similar to this example from [class.protected] in the standard:
class B {
protected:
int
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52136
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-02-06
13:50:40 UTC ---
I think G++ is correct here.
[class.protected]p1
An additional access check beyond those described earlier in Clause 11 is
applied when a non-static data
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52136
Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52136
--- Comment #4 from Sylvestre Ledru sylvestre at debian dot org 2012-02-06
14:08:21 UTC ---
I found this bug (or behavior) while playing with clang.
I am not really sure to understand why friend class should impact his parent
but if g++
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52136
--- Comment #5 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-02-06
14:24:39 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #4)
I am not really sure to understand why friend class should impact his parent
but if g++ respects the standard, why not...
It
