From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 6808 invoked by alias); 19 Nov 2003 04:36:37 -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 6801 invoked by alias); 19 Nov 2003 04:36:36 -0000 Date: Wed, 19 Nov 2003 04:36:00 -0000 Message-ID: <20031119043636.6800.qmail@sources.redhat.com> From: "gdr at integrable-solutions dot net" To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org In-Reply-To: <20031117165847.13086.akim@epita.fr> References: <20031117165847.13086.akim@epita.fr> Reply-To: gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug c++/13086] [3.3/3.4 regression] the location of the warning message is wrong when calling delete on incomplete type X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC X-SW-Source: 2003-11/txt/msg01713.txt.bz2 List-Id: ------- Additional Comments From gdr at integrable-solutions dot net 2003-11-19 04:36 ------- Subject: Re: [3.3/3.4 regression] no error when calling delete on incomplete type, and no location "falk dot hueffner at student dot uni-tuebingen dot de" writes: | ------- Additional Comments From falk dot hueffner at student dot uni-tuebingen dot de 2003-11-17 17:51 ------- | Subject: Re: [3.3/3.4 regression] no error when calling delete on incomplete type, and no location | | "bangerth at dealii dot org" writes: | | > Confirmed. There are at least two regressions here: up to | > 2.95 we issued the line of the code that tried to call operator delete, | > and we actually issued a hard error instead of a warning (I think | > I recall that a hard error is required). | | I don't think it is. The standard says: | | "If the object being deleted has incomplete class type at the point of | deletion and the complete class has a non-trivial destructor or a | deallocation function, the behavior is undefined." | | which would be pointless if this was a hard error. But GCC can decide to define that behaviour to be hard error. I believe I discussed -- a while ago -- this specific issue with Jason, Alexandre Oliva. I argued that the compiler should issue a hard error. I was in minority :-( I still think, this should be a hard error. -- Gaby -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=13086