[Bug libstdc++/13864] stl_hastable.h Line 527

["greg dot bertin at solacesystems dot com" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>]

------- Additional Comments From greg dot bertin at solacesystems dot com  2004-01-26 14:28 -------
Subject: RE:  stl_hastable.h Line 527

Actually this is my idiocy ... you are quite correct. Copy constructors
must assume they are working with uninitialized memory ... my fault ...
sorry!!

> -----Original Message-----
> From: gdr at integrable-solutions dot net [mailto:gcc-
> bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org]
> Sent: Monday, January 26, 2004 1:39 AM
> To: greg.bertin@solacesystems.com
> Subject: [Bug libstdc++/13864] stl_hastable.h Line 527
> 
> 
> ------- Additional Comments From gdr at integrable-solutions dot net
> 2004-01-26 06:38 -------
> Subject: Re:  New: stl_hastable.h Line 527
> 
> "greg dot bertin at solacesystems dot com" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
> writes:
> 
> | _Construct(&__n->_M_val, __obj); being called with an unitialized
memory
> | pointer (__n) being passed as the first parameter (i.e. it is memory
> allocated
> | from an allocator in line 524). Memory should be default constructed
> first to
> | ensure the class' copy constructor behaves properly:
> |
> |     try {
> |       _Construct(&__n->_M_val);
> |       _Construct(&__n->_M_val, __obj);
> |       return __n;
> |     }
> 
> I don't understand.  Why should a default construction be needed
> before a copy-construction?  A constructor is called only once in an
> object lifetime.
> 
> -- Gaby
> 
> 
> --
> 
> 
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=13864
> 
> ------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
> You reported the bug, or are watching the reporter.




-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=13864