From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 29816 invoked by alias); 31 Oct 2010 11:59:33 -0000 Received: (qmail 29807 invoked by uid 22791); 31 Oct 2010 11:59:32 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.4 required=5.0 tests=ALL_TRUSTED,AWL,BAYES_00,MISSING_MID X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from localhost (HELO gcc.gnu.org) (127.0.0.1) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Sun, 31 Oct 2010 11:59:23 +0000 From: "gcc at waisse dot org" To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug c++/32402] Error while allocating array of pointers to objects of a pure virtual class X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC X-Bugzilla-Type: changed X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc X-Bugzilla-Component: c++ X-Bugzilla-Keywords: rejects-valid X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal X-Bugzilla-Who: gcc at waisse dot org X-Bugzilla-Status: NEW X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3 X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: --- X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: In-Reply-To: References: X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/ Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Sun, 31 Oct 2010 11:59:00 -0000 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: 2010-10/txt/msg02629.txt.bz2 Message-ID: <20101031115900.k5rUunx-xRC8-BZCPgZRDKYRmpn0RLxWajpvPJd2YeI@z> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32402 --- Comment #12 from William Waisse 2010-10-31 11:59:13 UTC --- I m no more working for the company that was trying to port this code to linux/GCC 3 YEARS AGO . They finally abandonned the idea to get their professional application working on GCC/Linux. I m sure this IS a bug , and I cant understand why this (documented) bug is still new 3 years later. I m not sure this is ok with C++ grammar or semantic ( but I think it is ), I m just sure this is a good thing to give microsoft and concurrent compilers more customers who will not have the choice to move to linux/gcc. Even if its not a bug, gcc should provide an "official" workaround and argue on WHY this is not possible in gcc, while available without any problem with most other compilers . Thanks Jonathan Wakely ( comment #9 ) , posting a workaround IS relevant, and useful for the next one hitting this bug.