From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 11452 invoked by alias); 2 Jun 2003 18:19:39 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-bugs-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 11417 invoked by uid 48); 2 Jun 2003 18:19:38 -0000 Date: Mon, 02 Jun 2003 18:19:00 -0000 From: "reichelt@gcc.gnu.org" To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org Message-ID: <20030602181938.11067.reichelt@gcc.gnu.org> Reply-To: gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug c++/11067] New: [3.3/3.4 regression] Strange warning with abstract virtual inline function X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC X-SW-Source: 2003-06/txt/msg00377.txt.bz2 List-Id: PLEASE REPLY TO gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org ONLY, *NOT* gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org. http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=11067 Summary: [3.3/3.4 regression] Strange warning with abstract virtual inline function Product: gcc Version: 3.3.1 Status: UNCONFIRMED Keywords: diagnostic Severity: normal Priority: P4 Component: c++ AssignedTo: unassigned@gcc.gnu.org ReportedBy: reichelt@gcc.gnu.org CC: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org GCC host triplet: i686-pc-linux-gnu Compiling the following code snippet, I get a strange warning: ------------------------------------------------- struct A { virtual inline void foo() const=0; void bar() { foo(); } }; ------------------------------------------------- The warning reads: warn.cc:3: warning: inline function `virtual void A::foo() const' used but never defined The keyword "inline" doesn't make much sense, but the warning is confusing IMHO. The warning was introduced in gcc 3.3, so I rate this as a regression. ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is.