[Bug c++/30111] Value-initialization of POD base class doesn't initialize members

[Bug c++/30111] Value-initialization of POD base class doesn't initialize members

[jackie.rosen at hushmail dot com]

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30111

Jackie Rosen <jackie.rosen at hushmail dot com> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |jackie.rosen at hushmail dot com

--- Comment #11 from Jackie Rosen <jackie.rosen at hushmail dot com> ---
*** Bug 260998 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Seen from the domain http://volichat.com
Marked for reference. Resolved as fixed @bugzilla.

[Bug c++/30111] Value-initialization of POD base class doesn't initialize members

[jason at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Comment #10 from jason at gcc dot gnu dot org  2009-02-11 22:50 -------
Fixed for 4.4.


-- 

jason at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|ASSIGNED                    |RESOLVED
         Resolution|                            |FIXED


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30111

[Bug c++/30111] Value-initialization of POD base class doesn't initialize members

[jason at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Comment #9 from jason at gcc dot gnu dot org  2009-02-11 22:38 -------
Subject: Bug 30111

Author: jason
Date: Wed Feb 11 22:38:37 2009
New Revision: 144112

URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=144112
Log:
        PR c++/30111
        * init.c (build_value_init_noctor): Split out from...
        (build_value_init): ...here.
        (expand_aggr_init_1): Handle value-initialization.
        * cp-tree.h: Add declaration.
        * class.c (type_has_user_provided_constructor):
        Handle non-class arguments.

Added:
    trunk/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/init/value7.C
Modified:
    trunk/gcc/cp/ChangeLog
    trunk/gcc/cp/class.c
    trunk/gcc/cp/cp-tree.h
    trunk/gcc/cp/init.c
    trunk/gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30111

[Bug c++/30111] Value-initialization of POD base class doesn't initialize members

[jason at gcc dot gnu dot org]

-- 

jason at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
         AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot gnu   |jason at gcc dot gnu dot org
                   |dot org                     |
             Status|NEW                         |ASSIGNED
   Last reconfirmed|2006-12-30 19:40:22         |2009-02-11 05:35:35
               date|                            |


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30111

[Bug c++/30111] Value-initialization of POD base class doesn't initialize members

[rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Comment #8 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org  2008-02-04 16:06 -------
Jason is this the same issue as PR33916 you fixed?  (Your fix didn't change
the outcome of this PR though)


-- 

rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |jason at redhat dot com


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30111

[Bug c++/30111] Value-initialization of POD base class doesn't initialize members

[jwakely dot gcc at gmail dot com]

------- Comment #7 from jwakely dot gcc at gmail dot com  2007-06-18 01:36 -------
Confirmed on x86-linux, sparc-solaris and ppc-AIX so I've removed the Target.

Also verified that valgrind shows the uninitialised memory reads.

This bug breaks common idioms like:

template <typename A, typename B>
  struct compressed_pair : A {
    compressed_pair() : A(), second_() { }
    A& first() { return *this; }
    B& second() { return second_; }
  private:
    B second_;
  };


-- 

jwakely dot gcc at gmail dot com changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 GCC target triplet|sparc-sun-solaris2.9        |
      Known to fail|                            |4.2.0 4.1.1 3.4.3 3.3.4


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30111

[Bug c++/30111] Value-initialization of POD base class doesn't initialize members

[pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Comment #6 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org  2007-06-10 02:18 -------
*** Bug 32141 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***


-- 

pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |james dot kanze at gmail dot
                   |                            |com


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30111

[Bug c++/30111] Value-initialization of POD base class doesn't initialize members

[gdr at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Comment #5 from gdr at gcc dot gnu dot org  2006-12-30 19:40 -------
Thsi is indeed a bug in g++.
the pod() in inherit() is a value-initialization, not a call to 
default-constructor.


-- 

gdr at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|UNCONFIRMED                 |NEW
     Ever Confirmed|0                           |1
   Last reconfirmed|0000-00-00 00:00:00         |2006-12-30 19:40:22
               date|                            |


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30111

[Bug c++/30111] Value-initialization of POD base class doesn't initialize members

[gcc-bugzilla at kayari dot org]

------- Comment #4 from gcc-bugzilla at kayari dot org  2006-12-08 10:36 -------
Richard, there's no difference between pod() and p() in this case, both are
value-initialisations of a POD class, therefore all non-static data members
should be value-initialised.  I cited 8.5p5 for good reason :)

Sun CC 6.1 and 8 and IBM xlC 6 get this right.


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30111

[Bug c++/30111] Value-initialization of POD base class doesn't initialize members

[pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Comment #3 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org  2006-12-08 07:34 -------
(In reply to comment #2)
> As compose is not POD it initializes p in the constructor.  For inherit the
> constructor of p is called which - surprise - as a POD constructor does
> nothing.

Actually read the standard, it does, see 8.5/7 and 8.5/5 the second part about
default initializer.


-- 

pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|RESOLVED                    |UNCONFIRMED
         Resolution|INVALID                     |


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30111

[Bug c++/30111] Value-initialization of POD base class doesn't initialize members

[rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Comment #2 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org  2006-12-08 07:27 -------
As compose is not POD it initializes p in the constructor.  For inherit the
constructor of p is called which - surprise - as a POD constructor does
nothing.


-- 

rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|UNCONFIRMED                 |RESOLVED
         Resolution|                            |INVALID


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30111

[Bug c++/30111] Value-initialization of POD base class doesn't initialize members

[gcc-bugzilla at kayari dot org]

------- Comment #1 from gcc-bugzilla at kayari dot org  2006-12-07 18:03 -------
Values printed out confirm it on Linux for 3.3.5 20050117 (prerelease) (SUSE
Linux), and official FSF 3.4.3, 4.0.1, 4.0.2, 4.1.1

N.B. I meant AIX 5.3, not 5/3


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30111