else if (BASELINK_P (expr) && !processing_template_decl)
{
tree fns;
+ tree ob;
/* See if any of the functions are non-static members. */
fns = BASELINK_FUNCTIONS (expr);
fns = TREE_OPERAND (fns, 0);
/* If so, the expression may be relative to 'this'. */
if (!shared_member_p (fns)
- && current_class_ref
- && DERIVED_FROM_P (qualifying_class, TREE_TYPE (current_class_ref)))
+ && (ob = maybe_dummy_object (qualifying_class, NULL),
+ !is_dummy_object (ob)))
expr = (build_class_member_access_expr
- (maybe_dummy_object (qualifying_class, NULL),
+ (ob,
expr,
BASELINK_ACCESS_BINFO (expr),
/*preserve_reference=*/false,
. operator.... [Otherwise] a contrived object of type T
becomes the implied object argument.
- This paragraph is unclear about this situation:
+ In this situation:
struct A { void f(); };
struct B : public A {};
struct C : public A { void g() { B::f(); }};
- In particular, for `B::f', this paragraph does not make clear
- whether "the class of that member function" refers to `A' or
- to `B'. We believe it refers to `B'. */
- if (current_class_type
- && DERIVED_FROM_P (BINFO_TYPE (BASELINK_ACCESS_BINFO (fn)),
- current_class_type)
- && current_class_ref)
- object = maybe_dummy_object (BINFO_TYPE (BASELINK_ACCESS_BINFO (fn)),
- NULL);
- else
- {
- tree representative_fn;
+ "the class of that member function" refers to `A'. But 11.2
+ [class.access.base] says that we need to convert 'this' to B* as
+ part of the access, so we pass 'B' to maybe_dummy_object. */
- representative_fn = BASELINK_FUNCTIONS (fn);
- if (TREE_CODE (representative_fn) == TEMPLATE_ID_EXPR)
- representative_fn = TREE_OPERAND (representative_fn, 0);
- representative_fn = get_first_fn (representative_fn);
- object = build_dummy_object (DECL_CONTEXT (representative_fn));
- }
+ object = maybe_dummy_object (BINFO_TYPE (BASELINK_ACCESS_BINFO (fn)),
+ NULL);
if (processing_template_decl)
{