On Sat, 2003-05-31 at 10:35, Martin v. Löwis wrote:
> Herbert Valerio Riedel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > ...so... is _still_ not a buggy behaviour??
>
> No. Look at 8.5/9:
>
> # If no initializer is specified for an object, and the object is of
> # (possibly cv-qualified) non-POD class type (or array thereof), the
> # object shall be default-initialized; if the object is of
> # const-qualified type, the underlying class type shall have a
> # user-declared default constructor.
[..]
# Otherwise, if no initializer is specified for anobject, the object
# and its subobjects, if any, have an indeterminate initial value; if
# the object or any of its subobjects are of const-qualified type, the
# program is ill-formed.
> Your objects have const-qualified type, and the underlying class has
> no user-declared default constructor, hence your program is
> ill-formed.
alright, then g++'s fault is to fail to recognize the ill-formed-ness of
at least the following cases, happily succeeds compiling them...:
struct foo {
virtual void f(void);
};
struct bar {
bar (); // user defined default constructor
};
struct doo {
bar m_bar; // non-POD member w/ u.d.d.c
};
struct zoo: public bar { }; // inherited u.d.d.c
const foo a_foo; // ill-formed - foo has no user-declared def-cons
const bar a_bar; // ok
const doo a_doo; // ill-formed - doo has no user-declared def-cons
const zoo a_zoo; // ill-formed? not sure about this one...
reagards,
--
Herbert Valerio Riedel / Phone: (EUROPE) +43-1-58801-18840
Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] / Finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] for GnuPG Public
Key
GnuPG Key Fingerprint: 7BB9 2D6C D485 CE64 4748 5F65 4981 E064 883F 4142
