Re: [RFC / RFH] Re-opened C++/51213 (access control under SFINAE)

[Paolo Carlini <paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com>]

Hi again,

On 08/01/2012 08:40 PM, Paolo Carlini wrote:
> For the second evaluation, the second time we call 
> instantiate_template_1, thus for the interesting g(int) overload, here:
>
>   spec = retrieve_specialization (gen_tmpl, targ_ptr, 0);
>
>   gcc_assert (tmpl == gen_tmpl
>           || ((fndecl = retrieve_specialization (tmpl, orig_args, 0))
>           == spec)
>           || fndecl == NULL_TREE);
>
>   if (spec != NULL_TREE)
>     {
>       if (FNDECL_RECHECK_ACCESS_P (spec) && (complain & tf_error))
>     recheck_decl_substitution (spec, gen_tmpl, targ_ptr);
>       return spec;
>     }
>
> things are completely different, because spec != NULL_TREE and, more 
> importantly, complain is tf_none, thus recheck_decl_substitution is 
> not called, we just return immediately.
So, it is possible that when spec != NULL_TREE and we are once more in a 
SFINAE context, we have to actually call perform_deferred_access_checks 
(complain) and either return error_mark_node or the spec depending on 
the return value?

Paolo.