[cfe-dev] private class members access fails with meta-programming in clang?

[Handa, Ramneek]

I am confused on how to find this in the std document.
What I find in there is (from n3485):
1. Page-231, clause 4 - Access control is applied uniformly to all
names, whether the names are referred to from declarations or
expressions.
2. Page-231, clause 5 - It should be noted that it is access to members
and base classes that is controlled, not their visibility. Names
of members are still visible, and implicit conversions to base classes
are still considered, when those members
and base classes are inaccessible. The interpretation of a given
construct is established without regard to
access control. If the interpretation established makes use of
inaccessible member names or base classes, the
construct is ill-formed.

I am not sure what they mean by visibility?

Could you send me what sections and clauses are you referring to?

Thanks for response again.

Regards.


-----Original Message-----
From: cfe-dev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu [mailto:cfe-dev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu]
On Behalf Of John McCall
Sent: Thursday, April 25, 2013 2:27 PM
To: Ramneek Handa
Cc: clang-dev Developers
Subject: Re: [cfe-dev] private class members access fails with
meta-programming in clang?

On Apr 24, 2013, at 9:20 AM, Ramneek Handa <ramneekhanda at gmail.com>
wrote:
> I thought this should pass with clang.
> 
> x-- start --x
> 
> #include <boost/mpl/has_xxx.hpp>
> 
> BOOST_MPL_HAS_XXX_TRAIT_NAMED_DEF(hasSomething, Data, false);
> 
> class A {
> private:
> struct Data {
> };
> };
> 
> 
> void function(bool val = hasSomething<A>::value) {}
> 
> 
> x-- end --x
> 
> however it produces following output:
> test_private_data.cpp:3:49: error: 'Data' is a private member of 'A'
> BOOST_MPL_HAS_XXX_TRAIT_NAMED_DEF(hasSomething, Data, false);
> ^
> /usr/include/boost/mpl/has_xxx.hpp:195:68: note: expanded from macro
'BOOST_MPL_HAS_XXX_TRAIT_NAMED_DEF'
> , boost::mpl::aux::type_wrapper<BOOST_MSVC_TYPENAME U::name>* = 0 \
> ^
> test_private_data.cpp:3:1: note: while substituting deduced template
arguments into function template 'test' [with U = A]
> BOOST_MPL_HAS_XXX_TRAIT_NAMED_DEF(hasSomething, Data, false);
> ^
> /usr/include/boost/mpl/has_xxx.hpp:193:41: note: expanded from macro
'BOOST_MPL_HAS_XXX_TRAIT_NAMED_DEF'
> static boost::mpl::aux::yes_tag test( \
> ^
> test_private_data.cpp:12:26: note: in instantiation of template class
'hasSomething<A, mpl_::bool_<false> >' requested here
> void function(bool val = hasSomething<A>::value) {}
> ^
> 1 error generated.
> /usr/bin/ld: /tmp/test_private_data-Hatffv.o: No such file: No such
file or directory
> clang: error: linker command failed with exit code 1 (use -v to see
invocation)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BUT it passes with GCC.
> 
> Which one is right?

I assume that Boost is using SFINAE here in its check.  Access control
violations were not subject to SFINAE prior to C++11, and Clang is
correct
to diagnose it.  You can compile with -std=c++11 to make this work;  the
trait will return 'false'.

John.

_______________________________________________
cfe-dev mailing list
cfe-dev at cs.uiuc.edu
http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-dev

This email and any attachments are confidential and may also be privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, please delete all copies and notify the sender immediately. You may wish to refer to the incorporation details of Standard Chartered PLC, Standard Chartered Bank and their subsidiaries at http://www.standardchartered.com/en/incorporation-details.html.