From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 30759 invoked by alias); 13 Feb 2008 11:29:27 -0000 Received: (qmail 30750 invoked by uid 22791); 13 Feb 2008 11:29:27 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from rn-out-0910.google.com (HELO rn-out-0910.google.com) (64.233.170.189) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Wed, 13 Feb 2008 11:29:00 +0000 Received: by rn-out-0910.google.com with SMTP id j40so2871649rnf.20 for ; Wed, 13 Feb 2008 03:28:58 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.142.226.2 with SMTP id y2mr1996132wfg.75.1202902136823; Wed, 13 Feb 2008 03:28:56 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.143.171.4 with HTTP; Wed, 13 Feb 2008 03:28:56 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <6c33472e0802130328m46c80dfaxe0ac6380ac506857@mail.gmail.com> Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2008 11:42:00 -0000 From: "=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Manuel_L=F3pez-Ib=E1=F1ez?=" To: "Jason Merrill" Subject: Re: PR c++/5645 gcc warns that pure virtual class not explicitly initialized Cc: "Mark Mitchell" , "GCC Patches" , "Nathan Sidwell" In-Reply-To: <47B1B3FB.3030502@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline References: <6c33472e0710271010s2a6cc785w1524bbf39b9f607a@mail.gmail.com> <472E58AD.6040001@codesourcery.com> <6c33472e0711111603i33c203afx930e2eb3bd8c1be2@mail.gmail.com> <4738C0DA.80903@redhat.com> <6c33472e0711121627v3946f828s6c6bb9b1d25de6ef@mail.gmail.com> <47B1B3FB.3030502@redhat.com> X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact gcc-patches-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-patches-owner@gcc.gnu.org X-SW-Source: 2008-02/txt/msg00446.txt.bz2 On 12/02/2008, Jason Merrill wrote: > Manuel L=F3pez-Ib=E1=F1ez wrote: > > On 12/11/2007, Jason Merrill wrote: > >> I was suggesting that we check for any user-defined constructor. > > > > My question was: is there any function to find out that? > > There is now, TYPE_HAS_USER_CONSTRUCTOR. > I posted the following comment in PR 5645 [1] Created an attachment (id=3D15136) [edit] patch and testcases This patch contains an attempt to implement the suggestions given here: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2007-11/msg00149.html It also contains all testcases from PR 5645 and PR 11159. The tests in g++.dg/warn/pr5645.C pass. The tests in g++.dg/warn/pr11159.C fail. The fundamental problem is that I don't understand what this warning is war= ning about. And nobody seems to have a clear idea either. Unless someone can put forward a clear definition that is justified for the testcases above and provides new testcases (either positive or negative), I= am not going to work anymore on this (except if asked to remove the warning altogether). [1] http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D5645#c9