[Bug c++/19243] New: Misleading error message for ill-formed explicit destructor invocation

[Bug c++/19243] New: Misleading error message for ill-formed explicit destructor invocation

[austern at apple dot com]

gcc 4.0 gives an error message for the following file:
struct X {
  void destroy_me() { X::~X(); }
};
This code is incorrect, so an error message is appropriate.  However, the error message isn't likely to be 
useful.  

The error message we get is:
foo.cc: In member function 'void X::destroy_me()':
foo.cc:2: error: '~X' is not a member of 'X'

But that's not the real problem.  Obviously ~X() is a member of X.  The real problem is that this is the 
wrong syntax for an explicit destructor invocation: the user should have written this->X::~X(), not X::
~X() by itself.

(See the formal grammar for postfix expressions in 5.2/1, and the discussion of pseudo-destructor 
calls in 5.2.4, to see why this code is incorrect.)

-- 
           Summary: Misleading error message for ill-formed explicit
                    destructor invocation
           Product: gcc
           Version: 4.0.0
            Status: UNCONFIRMED
          Severity: minor
          Priority: P2
         Component: c++
        AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
        ReportedBy: austern at apple dot com
                CC: gcc-bugs at gcc dot gnu dot org
 GCC build triplet: all
  GCC host triplet: all
GCC target triplet: all


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19243

[Bug c++/19243] Misleading error message for ill-formed explicit destructor invocation

[pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org  2005-01-03 20:49 -------
Hmm, I think this is valid code and should not be rejected, see DR 272 and PR 12333 (which I think this 
is a dup of).

-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19243

[Bug c++/19243] Misleading error message for ill-formed explicit destructor invocation

[pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org  2005-01-03 20:52 -------
Looking further it is a dup of bug 12333.  But I also note this is only invalid in C++-98 and not in 
C++-0x because of that DR being in WP status.

*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 12333 ***

-- 
           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|UNCONFIRMED                 |RESOLVED
         Resolution|                            |DUPLICATE


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19243

[Bug c++/19243] Misleading error message for ill-formed explicit destructor invocation

[austern at apple dot com]

------- Additional Comments From austern at apple dot com  2005-01-03 20:55 -------
Subject: Re:  Misleading error message for ill-formed explicit destructor invocation

On Jan 3, 2005, at 12:49 PM, pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:

>
> ------- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org  
> 2005-01-03 20:49 -------
> Hmm, I think this is valid code and should not be rejected, see DR 272 
> and PR 12333 (which I think this
> is a dup of).

DR 272 is in "WP" status, meaning it's part of the working paper for 
C++0x.  It's not part of the International Standard ISO/IEC 14882:2003.

I couldn't find anything in the standard saying that it was acceptable 
to write an explicit destructor call using a qualified-id.  Did I miss 
something?



-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19243

[Bug c++/19243] Misleading error message for ill-formed explicit destructor invocation

[giovannibajo at libero dot it]

------- Additional Comments From giovannibajo at libero dot it  2005-01-03 21:58 -------
No, you are right, this is a diagnostic problem. Andrew thought it was 
referred to the legality of the code instead.

-- 
           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|RESOLVED                    |UNCONFIRMED
           Keywords|                            |diagnostic
         Resolution|DUPLICATE                   |


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19243

[Bug c++/19243] Misleading error message for ill-formed explicit destructor invocation

[austern at apple dot com]

------- Additional Comments From austern at apple dot com  2005-01-05 05:21 -------
Nope, I was wrong.  DR272 only affects a nonnormative note.  I've checked with Mike Miller, and he 
pointed me to the appropriate normative text that implies that X::~X() within a member function applies 
to the destructor.  This is a rejects-valid bug, not just a bad diagnostic.

-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19243

[Bug c++/19243] Misleading error message for ill-formed explicit destructor invocation

[pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org]

-- 
           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
  GCC build triplet|all                         |
   GCC host triplet|all                         |
 GCC target triplet|all                         |


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19243

[Bug c++/19243] Misleading error message for ill-formed explicit destructor invocation

[pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org  2005-06-19 14:27 -------


*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 12333 ***

-- 
           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|UNCONFIRMED                 |RESOLVED
         Resolution|                            |DUPLICATE


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19243