------- Comment #6 from redi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-03-30 11:19 ------- (In reply to comment #5) > > Nevertheless, can you confirm that it is valid C++03 ? > > I mean invalid, sorry.
Yup :-) It is invalid. A is a non-POD class type, so 5.3.4/15 says the new-expression without a new-initializer causes the object to be default-initialized, which causes a default constructor to be implicitly-defined with an empty mem-initializer list (12.1/7) which is ill-formed by 8.5/5 because the reference member is not initialized. In C++03 the cases of Foo and A are slightly different, "new Foo" is ill-formed according to 5.3.4/15 and "new A" is ill-formed as described above. In C++0x both "new Foo" and "new A" result in a call to a deleted constructor. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25811
