From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: by sourceware.org (Postfix, from userid 48)
	id 5F2AF3858C83; Fri, 21 Apr 2023 09:45:03 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 5F2AF3858C83
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org;
	s=default; t=1682070303;
	bh=MVcM9YJGC4g6rm3c/+6vEqNQWu4O3bexG+RhFbzXHS4=;
	h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From;
	b=NH4DI2ylMw622poOo26m8wNgwSwIbRP1hOJa88udAm76IslwOSZ6lqqIlIV8oB61M
	 VPLBrklnQhdqGzzBl+6jMpHUhZFL5DJ3u9lrnSSNRI3bXrMNhhn2b60TCidDEhn6H9
	 adQF09NGeS8eEowCpwAw9sFauhd1/rOn07YUUg+c=
From: "m.cencora at gmail dot com" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug c++/108993] Value initialization does not occur for derived
 class , for gcc versions > 5
Date: Fri, 21 Apr 2023 09:45:02 +0000
X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC
X-Bugzilla-Type: changed
X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None
X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc
X-Bugzilla-Component: c++
X-Bugzilla-Version: 12.2.0
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: wrong-code
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: m.cencora at gmail dot com
X-Bugzilla-Status: NEW
X-Bugzilla-Resolution: 
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: ---
X-Bugzilla-Flags: 
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: 
Message-ID: <bug-108993-4-mdmdPks2eM@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-108993-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-108993-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
MIME-Version: 1.0
List-Id: <gcc-bugs.sourceware.org>

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D108993

--- Comment #11 from m.cencora at gmail dot com ---
Nvm, I understood this rule differently. You are saying that initialization=
 is
two step:
 - first zero-initialized,
 - then default-initialized.

For me the way this rule is written is ambiguous.=