[Bug c++/38087] g++ accepts invalid destructor call

["egallager at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla at gcc dot gnu dot org>]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38087

Eric Gallager <egallager at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
           See Also|                            |https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
                   |                            |a/show_bug.cgi?id=12333
            Summary|Pseudo destructor call      |g++ accepts invalid
                   |                            |destructor call

--- Comment #5 from Eric Gallager <egallager at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
(In reply to Eric Gallager from comment #4)
> Redoing lost comments:
> 
> https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-bugs/2017-08/msg01624.html
> 
> Eric Gallager <egallager at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
> 
>            What    |Removed                     |Added
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>              Status|UNCONFIRMED                 |WAITING
>    Last reconfirmed|                            |2017-08-14
>                  CC|                            |egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
>      Ever confirmed|0                           |1
> 
> --- Comment #4 from Eric Gallager <egallager at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
> (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #1)
> > I still think this is valid code ...  There are defect reports against this
> > area too.
> 
> Which ones do you mean?
> 
> https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-bugs/2017-08/msg01637.html
> 
> Jonathan Wakely <redi at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
> 
>            What    |Removed                     |Added
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>            Keywords|                            |accepts-invalid
>              Status|WAITING                     |NEW
> 
> --- Comment #5 from Jonathan Wakely <redi at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
> There's https://wg21.link/cwg555 but I don't think it changes anything here.
> 
> [expr.pseudo] definitely doesn't apply, as that only applies to non-class
> types. (The bug title is wrong for the same reason, this is a destructor
> call, not a pseudo destructor call.)
> 
> The current wording in [basic.lookup.classref] says "At least one of the
> lookups shall find a name that refers to cv T." The object expression has
> type C, but the lookup result for B does not find that type, so the code is
> invalid.

Retitling then.