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
an object of type I, if the current access target is protected
when named in a class N, consider the friends of the classes P
where I <= P <= N and where a notional member of N would be
non-forbidden in P.
llvm-svn: 112358
Remove -faccess-control from -cc1; add -fno-access-control.
Make the driver pass -fno-access-control by default.
Update a bunch of tests to be correct under access control.
llvm-svn: 100880
that protected members be used on objects of types which derive from the
naming class of the lookup. My first N attempts at this were poorly-founded,
largely because the standard is very badly worded here.
llvm-svn: 100562
John McCall