I have the following C++ code:
class A {
protected:
struct Nested {
int x;
};
};
class B: public A {
friend class C;
};
class C {
void m1() {
According to the Standard, GCC is correct and Clang is wrong. It says at 11.2/4
A member m is accessible when named in class N if
- m as a member of N is protected, and the reference occurs in a member or friend of class N, or in a member or friend of a class P derived from N, where m as a member of P is private or protected
This is subject of this Clang bugreport, which prevents Clang from building Qt: http://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=6840 . One Clang guy says
Actually, I intentionally haven't implemented this rule yet. It is either a drafting error or a horrible mistake. It neuters the entire 'protected' specifier, it makes the well-formedness of code dependent on the existence of completely unrelated classes, it imposes high costs on the implementation, and it's formally undecidable in the presence of templates.