From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-bugs-return-349557-listarch-gcc-bugs=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 18996 invoked by alias); 9 Mar 2011 14:04:06 -0000
Received: (qmail 18984 invoked by uid 22791); 9 Mar 2011 14:04:05 -0000
X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.8 required=5.0	tests=ALL_TRUSTED,AWL,BAYES_00
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; Wed, 09 Mar 2011 14:04:01 +0000
From: "jakub at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug c++/48035] [4.4/4.5/4.6 Regression] Mismatch on size of class when initializing hierarchy involving virtual inheritance and empty base classes
X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC
X-Bugzilla-Type: changed
X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None
X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc
X-Bugzilla-Component: c++
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: wrong-code
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Status: ASSIGNED
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: 4.4.6
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: CC
Message-ID: <bug-48035-4-s0WECzceoj@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-48035-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-48035-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Date: Wed, 09 Mar 2011 14:04:00 -0000
Mailing-List: contact gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <gcc-bugs.gcc.gnu.org>
List-Archive: <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-bugs/>
List-Post: <mailto:gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org>
Sender: gcc-bugs-owner@gcc.gnu.org
X-SW-Source: 2011-03/txt/msg00870.txt.bz2

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48035

Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |jakub at gcc dot gnu.org

--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> 2011-03-09 14:03:35 UTC ---
I think the problem is that build_zero_init isn't aware of the
DECL_FIELD_IS_BASE FIELD_DECLs and CLASSTYPE_AS_BASE stuff.  So when
simplify_aggr_init_expr decides to call build_zero_init on the
SpecificImplementation type, while the first FIELD_DECL has size 8 and its type
also size 8, the second FIELD_DECL has size 12 (CLASSTYPE_SIZE_UNIT), its type
has size 24 and thus what build_zero_init returns on the subtype isn't directly
usable as ctor of the outer type.