Re: Is it a bug ?

Re: Is it a bug ?

[Jason Merrill]

>>>>> Alexandre Oliva <oliva@dcc.unicamp.br> writes:

> knizhnik  writes:
>> It looks like bug in compiler (if class A has no constructor then
>> no error message is produced)

> That's because the implicit constructor defined for A won't ever
> throw, that is, it is declared as:

> A::A() throw() {}

More correctly, the implicit constructor is trivial, so it doesn't get
called at all.

> So no exception handling code is inserted there.  Declaring the
> constructor of A as such should help

g++ currently doesn't do any optimization based on throw specs.

> but I believe access control should not be performed at that point.  The
> Nov'97 is not clear about that.

I disagree.  [expr.new] just says that a deallocation function is called;
it gives no indication that this call would be any different from any other
call, so access control should be performed.

Jason

is it a bug?

[JC Loredo-Osti]

Both, egcs-19980418 and egcs-19980425, complain about the follwing code



main(){
	double *p = new double[3](0);
}



However it does compile with egcs-1.0.2 and gcc-2.8.x
(With gcc-2.7.2 it gets a internal compiler error which is supresed by
replacing '(0)' with '(0.0)')

Is it a bug or new feature?

-j

josti@mscs.dal.ca

Re: is it a bug?

[Joe Buck]

> Both, egcs-19980418 and egcs-19980425, complain about the follwing code

> main(){
> 	double *p = new double[3](0);
> }

That's because it isn't C++.  g++ used to have an extension that allowed
the use of constructor arguments with arrays, but it hasn't been
maintained and the egcs team wants to encourage people to program in C++,
not a strange dialect called g++.  So you are likely to see the more
questionable GNU extensions eliminated.

If you need to do something like this (an array of values each of which
is initialized using constructor arguments), use vector<double> instead:

	vector<double> p(3,0.0);

(saying p(3,0) here will result in trouble -- yet another problem).

Re: is it a bug?

[JC Loredo-Osti]

> 
> > Both, egcs-19980418 and egcs-19980425, complain about the follwing code
> 
> > main(){
> > 	double *p = new double[3](0);
> > }
> 
> That's because it isn't C++.  g++ used to have an extension that allowed
> the use of constructor arguments with arrays, but it hasn't been
> maintained and the egcs team wants to encourage people to program in C++,
> not a strange dialect called g++.  So you are likely to see the more
> questionable GNU extensions eliminated.
> 
Yes, I have seen some of those. For this one I look into some books and I
didn't read nothing about it. 

Thanks a lot,
-j