* [Bug c++/5645] gcc warns that pure virtual class not explicitly initialized
[not found] <bug-5645-2936@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
@ 2007-02-09 14:02 ` manu at gcc dot gnu dot org
2007-10-17 11:26 ` manu at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (8 subsequent siblings)
9 siblings, 0 replies; 13+ messages in thread
From: manu at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2007-02-09 14:02 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #3 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-02-09 14:02 -------
Is this a duplicate of PR 11159 or are they different?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=5645
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread* [Bug c++/5645] gcc warns that pure virtual class not explicitly initialized
[not found] <bug-5645-2936@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
2007-02-09 14:02 ` manu at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2007-10-17 11:26 ` manu at gcc dot gnu dot org
2007-10-18 9:43 ` nathan at codesourcery dot com
` (7 subsequent siblings)
9 siblings, 0 replies; 13+ messages in thread
From: manu at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2007-10-17 11:26 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #4 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-10-17 11:26 -------
Does this patch makes any sense? This needs testcases (suggestions for extra
testcases are welcome), Changelog, bootstrap + testing and proper submission.
--- init.c 2007-09-20 15:13:00.000000000 +0100
+++ init.c.fixed 2007-10-17 12:20:24.000000000 +0100
@@ -684,10 +684,11 @@ emit_mem_initializers (tree mem_inits)
/* If these initializations are taking place in a copy
constructor, the base class should probably be explicitly
- initialized. */
+ initialized unless it is nearly empty. */
if (extra_warnings && !arguments
&& DECL_COPY_CONSTRUCTOR_P (current_function_decl)
- && TYPE_NEEDS_CONSTRUCTING (BINFO_TYPE (subobject)))
+ && TYPE_NEEDS_CONSTRUCTING (BINFO_TYPE (subobject))
+ && !CLASSTYPE_NEARLY_EMPTY_P (BINFO_TYPE (subobject))
warning (OPT_Wextra, "%Jbase class %q#T should be explicitly
initialized in the "
"copy constructor",
current_function_decl, BINFO_TYPE (subobject));
--
manu at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Last reconfirmed|2005-12-11 21:53:55 |2007-10-17 11:26:12
date| |
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=5645
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread* [Bug c++/5645] gcc warns that pure virtual class not explicitly initialized
[not found] <bug-5645-2936@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
2007-02-09 14:02 ` manu at gcc dot gnu dot org
2007-10-17 11:26 ` manu at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2007-10-18 9:43 ` nathan at codesourcery dot com
2007-10-30 3:46 ` patchapp at dberlin dot org
` (6 subsequent siblings)
9 siblings, 0 replies; 13+ messages in thread
From: nathan at codesourcery dot com @ 2007-10-18 9:43 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #5 from nathan at codesourcery dot com 2007-10-18 09:43 -------
Subject: Re: gcc warns that pure virtual class not explicitly
initialized
manu at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
> ------- Comment #4 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-10-17 11:26 -------
> Does this patch makes any sense? This needs testcases (suggestions for extra
> testcases are welcome), Changelog, bootstrap + testing and proper submission.
this patch looks reasonable.
nathan
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=5645
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread* [Bug c++/5645] gcc warns that pure virtual class not explicitly initialized
[not found] <bug-5645-2936@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
` (2 preceding siblings ...)
2007-10-18 9:43 ` nathan at codesourcery dot com
@ 2007-10-30 3:46 ` patchapp at dberlin dot org
2007-11-14 13:38 ` jwakely dot gcc at gmail dot com
` (5 subsequent siblings)
9 siblings, 0 replies; 13+ messages in thread
From: patchapp at dberlin dot org @ 2007-10-30 3:46 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #6 from patchapp at dberlin dot org 2007-10-30 03:46 -------
Subject: Bug number PR c++/5645
A patch for this bug has been added to the patch tracker.
The mailing list url for the patch is
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2007-10/msg01639.html
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=5645
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread* [Bug c++/5645] gcc warns that pure virtual class not explicitly initialized
[not found] <bug-5645-2936@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
` (3 preceding siblings ...)
2007-10-30 3:46 ` patchapp at dberlin dot org
@ 2007-11-14 13:38 ` jwakely dot gcc at gmail dot com
2008-02-13 11:13 ` manu at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (4 subsequent siblings)
9 siblings, 0 replies; 13+ messages in thread
From: jwakely dot gcc at gmail dot com @ 2007-11-14 13:38 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #7 from jwakely dot gcc at gmail dot com 2007-11-14 13:38 -------
Isn't this warning simply bogus? In other contexts if a default constructor is
available it will be used without warning, whether explicitly used or not.
e.g.
non-virtual bases in constructor initializer lists
data members in constructor initializer lists
"new T" vs "new T()"
"T t;" vs "T t = T();"
This warning seems to be an attempt to enforce someone's personal preference,
rather than any concerns about correctness. As shown by comment 9 on bug
11159, in some cases it's not even possible to do what the warning says you
"should" do.
--
jwakely dot gcc at gmail dot com changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |jwakely dot gcc at gmail dot
| |com
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=5645
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread* [Bug c++/5645] gcc warns that pure virtual class not explicitly initialized
[not found] <bug-5645-2936@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
` (4 preceding siblings ...)
2007-11-14 13:38 ` jwakely dot gcc at gmail dot com
@ 2008-02-13 11:13 ` manu at gcc dot gnu dot org
2008-02-13 11:24 ` manu at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (3 subsequent siblings)
9 siblings, 0 replies; 13+ messages in thread
From: manu at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2008-02-13 11:13 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #8 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-02-13 11:13 -------
*** Bug 11159 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
manu at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |boris at kolpackov dot net
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=5645
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread* [Bug c++/5645] gcc warns that pure virtual class not explicitly initialized
[not found] <bug-5645-2936@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
` (5 preceding siblings ...)
2008-02-13 11:13 ` manu at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2008-02-13 11:24 ` manu at gcc dot gnu dot org
2008-02-13 11:38 ` manu at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (2 subsequent siblings)
9 siblings, 0 replies; 13+ messages in thread
From: manu at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2008-02-13 11:24 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #9 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-02-13 11:23 -------
Created an attachment (id=15136)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=15136&action=view)
patch and testcases
This patch contains an attempt to implement the suggestions given here:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2007-11/msg00149.html
It also contains all testcases from PR 5645 and PR 11159.
The tests in g++.dg/warn/pr5645.C pass.
The tests in g++.dg/warn/pr11159.C fail.
The fundamental problem is that I don't understand what this warning is warning
about. And nobody seems to have a clear idea either.
Unless someone can put forward a clear definition that is justified for the
testcases above and provides new testcases (either positive or negative), I am
not going to work anymore on this (except if asked to remove the warning
altogether).
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=5645
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread* [Bug c++/5645] gcc warns that pure virtual class not explicitly initialized
[not found] <bug-5645-2936@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
` (6 preceding siblings ...)
2008-02-13 11:24 ` manu at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2008-02-13 11:38 ` manu at gcc dot gnu dot org
2008-02-14 23:12 ` jason at gcc dot gnu dot org
2008-02-14 23:39 ` manu at gcc dot gnu dot org
9 siblings, 0 replies; 13+ messages in thread
From: manu at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2008-02-13 11:38 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #10 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-02-13 11:38 -------
Created an attachment (id=15137)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=15137&action=view)
patch and testcases
Correct patch, the previous one did not contain pr11159.C
--
manu at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Attachment #15136|0 |1
is obsolete| |
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=5645
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread* [Bug c++/5645] gcc warns that pure virtual class not explicitly initialized
[not found] <bug-5645-2936@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
` (7 preceding siblings ...)
2008-02-13 11:38 ` manu at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2008-02-14 23:12 ` jason at gcc dot gnu dot org
2008-02-14 23:39 ` manu at gcc dot gnu dot org
9 siblings, 0 replies; 13+ messages in thread
From: jason at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2008-02-14 23:12 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #11 from jason at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-02-14 23:11 -------
Subject: Bug 5645
Author: jason
Date: Thu Feb 14 23:11:04 2008
New Revision: 132324
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=132324
Log:
PR c++/5645
PR c++/11159
* class.c (type_has_user_nondefault_constructor): New fn.
* cp-tree.h: Declare it.
* init.c (emit_mem_initializers): Use it for -W warning about
missing base initializer.
Added:
trunk/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/warn/pr11159.C
trunk/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/warn/pr5645.C
Modified:
trunk/gcc/cp/ChangeLog
trunk/gcc/cp/class.c
trunk/gcc/cp/cp-tree.h
trunk/gcc/cp/init.c
trunk/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/warn/Wreorder-1.C
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=5645
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread* [Bug c++/5645] gcc warns that pure virtual class not explicitly initialized
[not found] <bug-5645-2936@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
` (8 preceding siblings ...)
2008-02-14 23:12 ` jason at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2008-02-14 23:39 ` manu at gcc dot gnu dot org
9 siblings, 0 replies; 13+ messages in thread
From: manu at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2008-02-14 23:39 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #12 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-02-14 23:39 -------
Fixed in GCC 4.3 per Jason's commit. Not worth fixing it in branches.
--
manu at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution| |FIXED
Target Milestone|--- |4.3.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=5645
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread