From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-patches-return-334565-listarch-gcc-patches=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 11064 invoked by alias); 21 Dec 2012 11:38:56 -0000
Received: (qmail 10974 invoked by uid 22791); 21 Dec 2012 11:38:55 -0000
X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-4.7 required=5.0	tests=AWL,BAYES_00,FSL_NEW_HELO_USER,KHOP_THREADED,RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_NO,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD
X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org
Received: from userp1040.oracle.com (HELO userp1040.oracle.com) (156.151.31.81)    by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Fri, 21 Dec 2012 11:38:50 +0000
Received: from acsinet21.oracle.com (acsinet21.oracle.com [141.146.126.237])	by userp1040.oracle.com (Sentrion-MTA-4.2.2/Sentrion-MTA-4.2.2) with ESMTP id qBLBcmlj002666	(version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK);	Fri, 21 Dec 2012 11:38:49 GMT
Received: from acsmt358.oracle.com (acsmt358.oracle.com [141.146.40.158])	by acsinet21.oracle.com (8.14.4+Sun/8.14.4) with ESMTP id qBLBclQl029598	(version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO);	Fri, 21 Dec 2012 11:38:47 GMT
Received: from abhmt112.oracle.com (abhmt112.oracle.com [141.146.116.64])	by acsmt358.oracle.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id qBLBckq0031080;	Fri, 21 Dec 2012 05:38:46 -0600
Received: from [192.168.1.4] (/79.17.189.167)	by default (Oracle Beehive Gateway v4.0)	with ESMTP ; Fri, 21 Dec 2012 03:38:46 -0800
Message-ID: <50D44A43.2080500@oracle.com>
Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2012 11:38:00 -0000
From: Paolo Carlini <paolo.carlini@oracle.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:17.0) Gecko/17.0 Thunderbird/17.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Jason Merrill <jason@redhat.com>
CC: gcc-patches List <gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org>
Subject: Re: C++ PATCH for c++/54325 (wrong error initializing abstract base class)
References: <50C1790B.3040704@redhat.com>
In-Reply-To: <50C1790B.3040704@redhat.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-IsSubscribed: yes
Mailing-List: contact gcc-patches-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <gcc-patches.gcc.gnu.org>
List-Archive: <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/>
List-Post: <mailto:gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gcc-patches-help@gcc.gnu.org>
Sender: gcc-patches-owner@gcc.gnu.org
X-SW-Source: 2012-12/txt/msg01307.txt.bz2

Hi,

On 12/07/2012 06:05 AM, Jason Merrill wrote:
> It's perfectly OK to initialize a base class of abstract type; it's 
> only an error to create a full object of such a type.  So this patch 
> moves the check from more generic initialization code out into a 
> function that's definitely creating a new object.
>
> Tested x86_64-pc-linux-gnu, applying to trunk and 4.7.
I was looking a bit more into this Bug, and something seems still weird 
about the testcase in Comment #1 of the audit trail, which we also 
didn't reject with 4.6.x:

class base
{
     protected:
         base()
         {}
};

class derived : public base
{
     public:
         derived()
             : base{} // <-- Note the c++11 curly brace syntax
         {}
};

int main()
{
     derived d1;
     return 0;
}

???

Thanks,
Paolo.