Since partial specializations can't be named directly, their access
when declared at class scope is irrelevant, so we shouldn't have to set
their TREE_PRIVATE / TREE_PROTECTED in maybe_new_partial_specialization
(which is used only for constrained partial specializations anyway).
This code was added by
r10-4833-gcce3c9db9e6ffa for PR92078, but it
seems better to just disable the access consistency check for partial
specializations, which lets us accept the below testcase.
gcc/cp/ChangeLog:
* parser.cc (cp_parser_check_access_in_redeclaration): Don't
check access for a partial or explicit specialization.
* pt.cc (maybe_new_partial_specialization): Don't set TREE_PRIVATE
or TREE_PROTECTED on the newly created partial specialization.
gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog:
* g++.dg/template/partial-specialization14.C: New test.
Reviewed-by: Jason Merrill <jason@redhat.com>
cp_parser_check_access_in_redeclaration (tree decl, location_t location)
{
if (!decl
- || (!CLASS_TYPE_P (TREE_TYPE (decl))
+ || (!(CLASS_TYPE_P (TREE_TYPE (decl))
+ && !CLASSTYPE_TEMPLATE_SPECIALIZATION (TREE_TYPE (decl)))
&& TREE_CODE (TREE_TYPE (decl)) != ENUMERAL_TYPE))
return;
tree d = create_implicit_typedef (DECL_NAME (tmpl), t);
DECL_CONTEXT (d) = TYPE_CONTEXT (t);
DECL_SOURCE_LOCATION (d) = input_location;
- TREE_PRIVATE (d) = (current_access_specifier == access_private_node);
- TREE_PROTECTED (d) = (current_access_specifier == access_protected_node);
TREE_PUBLIC (d) = TREE_PUBLIC (DECL_TEMPLATE_RESULT (tmpl));
set_instantiating_module (d);
--- /dev/null
+// Verify we don't care about the access specifier when declaring
+// a partial specialization of a member class template.
+
+struct A1 {
+ template<class T> struct B { };
+private:
+ template<class T> struct B<T*> { }; // { dg-bogus "different access" }
+};
+
+struct A2 {
+ template<class T> struct B { };
+ template<class T> struct B<T*>;
+private:
+ template<class T> struct B<T*> { }; // { dg-bogus "different access" }
+};