GCC 3.2.3 rejected this:

pr11867.cc: In function `void ambig()':
pr11867.cc:10: invalid static_cast from type `ambig()::A*' to type `ambig()::D*
   '
pr11867.cc:12: `ambig()::A' is an ambiguous base of `ambig()::D'
pr11867.cc:15: `ambig()::A' is an ambiguous base of `ambig()::D'

Where 3.3.1 (20030707) and the mainline (20030808) does not.

From Phil's regression hunter: Search converges between 2003-06-25-trunk (#324) and 2003-
06-26-trunk (#325): Search converges between 2003-06-25-3.3 (#149) and 2003-06-26-3.3 
(#150).

The regression in PR 11867 was introduced or exposed by this patch:

--- gcc/gcc/cp/ChangeLog ---

2003-06-25  Mark Mitchell  <mark@codesourcery.com>

        PR c++/10931
        * call.c (convert_like): Pass issue_conversion_warnings.
        (convert_like_with_context): Likewise.
        (convert_like_real): Add issue_conversion_warnings parameter.
        (perform_direct_initialization_if_possible): New function.
        * cp-tree.h (perform_direct_initialization_if_possible): Declare it.
        * typeck.c (check_for_casting_away_constness): New function.
        (build_static_cast): Rewrite.

The regression hunt took place on i686-pc-linux-gnu using the submitter's
test case.

Fixed by (had the wrong PR number in it):
2003-09-06  Mark Mitchell 

	PR c++/11687
	* call.c (standard_conversion): Improve comments.
	(perform_direct_initialization): Make sure we return an expression
	of the correct type.
	* typeck.c (build_static_cast): Check for ambiguity and
	accessibility when performing conversions.

Thanks for fixing this.

And also for adding the accessibility check.
I did not report it, as I was not 100% sure about.

e.g. Comeau online test pass this without error:
(g++ now rejects it as I would have expected.)
-------
struct A {};

struct B : private A {};

int
main ()
{
  B b;
  A* ap = (A*) &b;
  B* bp = static_cast<B*> (ap); //Error
}
---------

Subject: Re:  [3.3/3.4 Regression] static_cast ignores
	ambiguity

On Sun, 2003-09-07 at 03:28, alfred dot minarik dot 1 at aon dot at
wrote:
> PLEASE REPLY TO gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org ONLY, *NOT* gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org.
> 
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=11867
> 
> 
> 
> ------- Additional Comments From alfred dot minarik dot 1 at aon dot at  2003-09-07 10:28 -------
> Thanks for fixing this.
> 
> And also for adding the accessibility check.
> I did not report it, as I was not 100% sure about.

Now that you mention that, I'd better go back and check the standard one
more time on that to make sure one way or the other.

Thanks,

Subject: Re:  [3.3/3.4 Regression] static_cast ignores
	ambiguity

> struct A {};
> 
> struct B : private A {};
> 
> int
> main ()
> {
>   B b;
>   A* ap = (A*) &b;
>   B* bp = static_cast<B*> (ap); //Error
> }

This program is invalid.

The reason is that the only static_cast alternative that would allow
this conversion is the:

  An rvalue of type "pointer to cv1 B", where B is a class type, can  be
  converted  to an rvalue of type "pointer to cv2 D", where D is a class
  derived (clause _class.derived_) from B, if a valid  standard  conver-
  sion from "pointer to D" to "pointer to B" exists (_conv.ptr_), cv2 is
  the same cv-qualification as, or greater cv-qualification  than,  cv1,
  and  B  is  not  a  virtual  base  class of D.

The "valid standard conversion" clause must be read to imply that this
restriction from [conv.ptr] applies to the conversion:

  If B is an inaccessible (clause _class.access_) or ambiguous
  (_class.member.lookup_) base class of  D, a program that necessitates
  this conversion is ill-formed.

Otherwise, there is nothing in the static_cast language to eliminate a
conversion from an ambiguous base to a derived class.

In fact, this was examined by the committee back in 1998, and is Core
Issue 54:

=====================

54. Static_cast from private base to derived class
Section: 5.2.9  expr.static.cast     Status: NAD     Submitter: Steve
Adamczyk     Date: 13 Oct 1998

Is it okay to use a static_cast to cast from a private base class to a
derived class? That depends on what the words "valid standard
conversion" in paragraph 8 mean — do they mean the conversion exists, or
that it would not get an error if it were done? I think the former was
intended — and therefore a static_cast from a private base to a derived
class would be allowed.

Rationale (04/99): A static_cast from a private base to a derived class
is not allowed outside a member from the derived class, because 4.10 
conv.ptr paragraph 3 implies that the conversion is not valid. (Classic
style casts work.)

=====================