From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 24546 invoked by alias); 31 Oct 2010 12:42:27 -0000 Received: (qmail 24538 invoked by uid 22791); 31 Oct 2010 12:42:26 -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 12:42:22 +0000 From: "redi at gcc dot gnu.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: redi at gcc dot gnu.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 12:42:00 -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/msg02631.txt.bz2 Message-ID: <20101031124200.jK7tA-cjqWB8BjWQaFEnS53_YxPeZudg7DloxV51x30@z> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32402 --- Comment #13 from Jonathan Wakely 2010-10-31 12:42:00 UTC --- (In reply to comment #12) > > I m sure this IS a bug , and I cant understand why this (documented) bug is > still new 3 years later. It's a bug, and should be fixed, but it's not critical and workaround is available. > 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. No need to exaggerate - simpler syntax can be used and the code will compile - this bug should not prevent anyone using GCC, claiming it does is silly. > 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 . There's a workaround in comment 5, it's been there for 3 years.