Add a quick-and-dirty hack to give a better diagnostic for [class.protected]
restrictions. The note's not really on the right place given its wording,
but putting a second note on the call site (or muddying the wording) doesn't
appeal.
There are corner cases where this can be wrong, but I'm not concerned.
llvm-svn: 112950
diff --git a/clang/test/CXX/class.access/p4.cpp b/clang/test/CXX/class.access/p4.cpp
index fa6e183..115a22a 100644
--- a/clang/test/CXX/class.access/p4.cpp
+++ b/clang/test/CXX/class.access/p4.cpp
@@ -372,7 +372,7 @@
int private_foo; // expected-note {{declared private here}}
static int private_sfoo; // expected-note {{declared private here}}
protected:
- int protected_foo; // expected-note 4 {{declared protected here}}
+ int protected_foo; // expected-note 3 {{declared protected here}} // expected-note {{object type must derive from context type 'test15::B<int>'}}
static int protected_sfoo; // expected-note 3 {{declared protected here}}
int test1(A<int> &a) {