From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-bugs-return-145409-listarch-gcc-bugs=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 19823 invoked by alias); 4 Jun 2005 22:18:08 -0000
Mailing-List: contact gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Archive: <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-bugs/>
List-Post: <mailto:gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org>
Sender: gcc-bugs-owner@gcc.gnu.org
Received: (qmail 19816 invoked by uid 48); 4 Jun 2005 22:18:05 -0000
Date: Sat, 04 Jun 2005 22:18:00 -0000
From: "igodard at pacbell dot net" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Message-ID: <20050604221804.21917.igodard@pacbell.net>
Reply-To: gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug c++/21917] New: Missing warning? (or error?)
X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC
X-SW-Source: 2005-06/txt/msg00489.txt.bz2
List-Id: <gcc-bugs.sourceware.org>

struct  virt { virt() : i(2) {} virt(int i) : i(i){} int i;  };
struct der1 : public virtual virt { der1(int i) : virt(i) {} };
struct der2 : public virtual virt { der2(int i) : virt(i) {} };
struct top : public der1, public der2 {
    top () : der1(0), der2(1) {} };
int main() { top t; }


Compiles without comment. However, the null constructor for "virt" is called
rather than the explicit constructor that is indicated by the constructor chain
from top. In fact, the der* constructors say " : virt(i)" but that
sub-constructor will never be called because virt is a virtual base class.

I don't know if it is actually an error to try to explicitly construct a virtual
base, but is sure is misleading and I think deserves at least a warning.

-- 
           Summary: Missing warning? (or error?)
           Product: gcc
           Version: 3.4.0
            Status: UNCONFIRMED
          Severity: normal
          Priority: P2
         Component: c++
        AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
        ReportedBy: igodard at pacbell dot net
                CC: gcc-bugs at gcc dot gnu dot org


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21917