From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 23379 invoked by alias); 24 Feb 2010 20:44:25 -0000 Received: (qmail 23249 invoked by uid 48); 24 Feb 2010 20:44:14 -0000 Date: Wed, 24 Feb 2010 20:44:00 -0000 Message-ID: <20100224204414.23248.qmail@sourceware.org> X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC References: Subject: [Bug c++/19808] miss a warning about uninitialized members in constructor In-Reply-To: Reply-To: gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org From: "jason at gcc dot gnu dot org" Mailing-List: contact gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-bugs-owner@gcc.gnu.org X-SW-Source: 2010-02/txt/msg02509.txt.bz2 ------- Comment #16 from jason at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-02-24 20:44 ------- (In reply to comment #14) > > (In reply to comment #8) > > > Incidentally, perhaps we should mark the this parameter as __restrict... > > I don't see how this would be correct (or useful). Hmm, I suppose it is possible to have another identical pointer in the case of placement new. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19808