From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 11568 invoked by alias); 20 Jan 2005 21:04:23 -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 11461 invoked by alias); 20 Jan 2005 21:04:11 -0000 Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2005 21:04:00 -0000 Message-ID: <20050120210411.11460.qmail@sourceware.org> From: "caj at cs dot york dot ac dot uk" To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org In-Reply-To: <20050120125055.19544.chris@bubblescope.net> References: <20050120125055.19544.chris@bubblescope.net> Reply-To: gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug libstdc++/19544] Difference in behaviour if default constructor added X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC X-SW-Source: 2005-01/txt/msg02881.txt.bz2 List-Id: ------- Additional Comments From caj at cs dot york dot ac dot uk 2005-01-20 21:04 ------- Subject: Re: Difference in behaviour if default constructor added bangerth at dealii dot org wrote: >------- Additional Comments From bangerth at dealii dot org 2005-01-20 20:46 ------- >To be completely clear, the compiler generated default constructor is > ptr() : a(0) {} >not > ptr() {} >Thus, it _does_ initialize 'a'. > >W. > > > Sorry to be dense, but I want to follow this.. Is this a choice g++ makes, or is it mandated by the standard? Is this defined by something other than 12.1/7, or does 12.1/7 actually require this and I'm misreading it? Thank you -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19544