Only suppress instance context if a member is actually
accessible in its declaring class; otherwise we might
fail to apply [class.protected] when considering
accessibility in derived classes.
Noticed by inspection; <rdar://13270329>.
I had an existing test wrong. Here's why it's wrong:
Follow the rules (and notation) of [class.access]p5.
The naming class (N) is B and the context (R) is D::getX.
- 'x' as a member of B is protected, but R does not occur
in a member or friend of a class derived from B.
- There does exist a base class of B, A, which is accessible
from R, and 'x' is accessible at R when named in A because
'x' as a member of A is protected and R occurs in a member
of a class, D, that is derived from A; however, by
[class.protected], the class of the object expression must
be equal to or derived from that class, and A does not
derive from D.
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/cfe/trunk@175858 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
diff --git a/lib/Sema/SemaAccess.cpp b/lib/Sema/SemaAccess.cpp
index 229e6f4..55bd76b 100644
--- a/lib/Sema/SemaAccess.cpp
+++ b/lib/Sema/SemaAccess.cpp
@@ -1317,7 +1317,13 @@
FinalAccess = Target->getAccess();
switch (HasAccess(S, EC, DeclaringClass, FinalAccess, Entity)) {
case AR_accessible:
+ // Target is accessible at EC when named in its declaring class.
+ // We can now hill-climb and simply check whether the declaring
+ // class is accessible as a base of the naming class. This is
+ // equivalent to checking the access of a notional public
+ // member with no instance context.
FinalAccess = AS_public;
+ Entity.suppressInstanceContext();
break;
case AR_inaccessible: break;
case AR_dependent: return AR_dependent; // see above
@@ -1325,8 +1331,6 @@
if (DeclaringClass == NamingClass)
return (FinalAccess == AS_public ? AR_accessible : AR_inaccessible);
-
- Entity.suppressInstanceContext();
} else {
FinalAccess = AS_public;
}