diff options
author | Patrick Palka <ppalka@redhat.com> | 2024-01-15 17:01:33 -0500 |
---|---|---|
committer | Patrick Palka <ppalka@redhat.com> | 2024-01-15 17:01:33 -0500 |
commit | f40076fa8291600c63d76f528cef0ce4c1f81f6e (patch) | |
tree | 2e542b9e3bc229d38141ffd4f04e516d33b17d2d /README | |
parent | 47673571b28278d857371167f4b67a04a1b87b59 (diff) | |
download | gcc-f40076fa8291600c63d76f528cef0ce4c1f81f6e.zip gcc-f40076fa8291600c63d76f528cef0ce4c1f81f6e.tar.gz gcc-f40076fa8291600c63d76f528cef0ce4c1f81f6e.tar.bz2 |
c++: access of class-scope partial spec
Since partial specializations can't be named directly, their access
when declared at class scope is irrelevant, so we shouldn't have to set
their TREE_PRIVATE / TREE_PROTECTED in maybe_new_partial_specialization
(which is used only for constrained partial specializations anyway).
This code was added by r10-4833-gcce3c9db9e6ffa for PR92078, but it
seems better to just disable the access consistency check for partial
specializations, which lets us accept the below testcase.
gcc/cp/ChangeLog:
* parser.cc (cp_parser_check_access_in_redeclaration): Don't
check access for a partial or explicit specialization.
* pt.cc (maybe_new_partial_specialization): Don't set TREE_PRIVATE
or TREE_PROTECTED on the newly created partial specialization.
gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog:
* g++.dg/template/partial-specialization14.C: New test.
Reviewed-by: Jason Merrill <jason@redhat.com>
Diffstat (limited to 'README')
0 files changed, 0 insertions, 0 deletions