My original patch missed the virtual-base case for destroying

base-class subojects.

Incidentally, thinking about virtual bases makes it clear to me that
we're not appropriately computing the access to the virtual base's
member because we're not computing the best possible access to the
virtual base at all;  in fact, we're basically assuming it's public.
I'll file a separate PR about that.

git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/cfe/trunk@154346 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8

1 files changed, 16 insertions, 0 deletions

diff --git a/test/CXX/class.access/class.protected/p1.cpp b/test/CXX/class.access/class.protected/p1.cpp
index 75c3ffffe8..c9491e1196 100644
--- a/test/CXX/class.access/class.protected/p1.cpp
+++ b/test/CXX/class.access/class.protected/p1.cpp
@@ -501,3 +501,19 @@ namespace test15 {
     }
   };
 }
+
+namespace test16 {
+  class A {
+  protected:
+    ~A();
+  };
+
+  class B : public virtual A {
+  public:
+    ~B() {}
+  };
+
+  class C : public B {
+    ~C() {}
+  };
+}