On Tue, Mar 14, 2017 at 10:43 AM, Nathan Sidwell wrote:
> On 03/13/2017 06:20 PM, Nathan Sidwell wrote:
>>
>> On 03/13/2017 05:05 PM, Jason Merrill wrote:
>>
>>> It looks like you're ignoring the access for all base destructors;
>>> handling this in synthesized_method_base_walk would let you limit
On 03/13/2017 06:20 PM, Nathan Sidwell wrote:
On 03/13/2017 05:05 PM, Jason Merrill wrote:
It looks like you're ignoring the access for all base destructors;
handling this in synthesized_method_base_walk would let you limit the
change to vbases with virtual destructors. That function also alre
On 03/13/2017 05:05 PM, Jason Merrill wrote:
It looks like you're ignoring the access for all base destructors;
handling this in synthesized_method_base_walk would let you limit the
change to vbases with virtual destructors. That function also already
handles ignoring access control for an inhe
On Mon, Mar 13, 2017 at 8:06 AM, Nathan Sidwell wrote:
> The resolution to DR 1658 causes vbases of abstract classes to be ignored
> when building the cdtors. That made sense for ctors, when there might be no
> default ctor available. But for dtors, there is only oe dtor and they can
> be virtua
The resolution to DR 1658 causes vbases of abstract classes to be
ignored when building the cdtors. That made sense for ctors, when there
might be no default ctor available. But for dtors, there is only oe
dtor and they can be virtual. That can break virtual overriding, as
79393 discovered.
