http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45770
Jonathan Wakely <redi at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution| |INVALID
--- Comment #6 from Jonathan Wakely <redi at gcc dot gnu.org> 2010-09-26
19:36:39 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #4)
>
> class A
> {
>
> friend class B;
>
> public:
> A(int i) { a = i; }
>
> protected:
> A(int i, int j) { a = i ^ j; }
>
> private:
> A() { a = 0; }
> int a;
>
> };
>
> class B : private A // making protected will allow local variables A below
> {
>
> public:
> B(int i) : A () { a = i >> 1; b = i & 1; }
B is a friend of A so can call the private constructor.
> private:
> bool b;
>
> };
>
> class C : public B
> {
>
> public:
> C() : B(4) { ::A foo(3); } // functions of B may have local variables ::A
> // but not A
A(int) is public, so it can be called
> };
>
> class D : public A
> {
> friend class D;
What is this supposed to do?
>
> D(int i, int j) : A(i,j)
A(int, int) is protected, so D can call it on its base sub-object
> {
> A d(i,j); // friend class D of class D has no inherited rights here
> // note that friends do not have inherited objects in general
The object 'd' is not a sub-object of D, so there is no access to that
constructor from D's member functions.
> }
> };
>
> main () { A bar(3); } // main may have local variables A
That constructor is public, so of course it can.
Your example is not valid C++, that's not a problem with GCC.
