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
