------- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-06-04
19:30 -------
(In reply to comment #2)
> So I did :-) So where does the `der2::der2(const void**)' come from?
It is a bug and a regression.
Reduced testcase for that bug:
struct virt { virt(){} virt(int i){} };
struct der: public virtual virt { der(int i):virt(i) {} };
struct top : public der {
top () {} };
3.2.3 gave:
t.cc: In constructor `top::top()':
t.cc:4: no matching function for call to `der::der()'
t.cc:2: candidates are: der::der(const der&)
t.cc:2: der::der(int)
which is the correct diagnostic.
3.3.3 gave something just as weird as 3.4.0 (and above):
t.cc: In constructor `top::top()':
t.cc:4: error: no matching function for call to `der::der(const <anonymous>**)'
t.cc:2: error: candidates are: der::der(const der&)
t.cc:2: error: der::der(int)
--
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever Confirmed| |1
Keywords| |diagnostic
Known to fail| |3.3.3 3.4.0 4.0.0 4.1.0
Known to work| |3.2.3
Last reconfirmed|0000-00-00 00:00:00 |2005-06-04 19:30:11
date| |
Summary|Even poorer diagnostic |[3.4/4.0/4.1 Regression]
| |poor diagnostic with vitrual
| |base classes
Target Milestone|--- |3.4.5
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21908
