From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 24217 invoked by alias); 14 Jan 2005 03:08:17 -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 24081 invoked by uid 48); 14 Jan 2005 03:08:10 -0000 Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2005 03:08:00 -0000 Message-ID: <20050114030810.24080.qmail@sourceware.org> From: "pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org" To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org In-Reply-To: <20050104053610.19249.gianni@mariani.ws> References: <20050104053610.19249.gianni@mariani.ws> Reply-To: gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug c++/19249] abstract classes should not access virtually inherited class constructor X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC X-SW-Source: 2005-01/txt/msg01763.txt.bz2 List-Id: ------- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-14 03:08 ------- Quoting the standard again (the same passage which we all quoted): "A mem-initializer naming a virtual base class shall be ignored during execution of the constructor of any class that is not the most derived class." A mem-initializer is always implicated for base cases even if not named explicitly. So this is still invalid code in my mind. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19249