------- Additional Comments From jkanze at cheuvreux dot com 2005-01-05 14:29 ------- The context of the quote from the standard is: "If the constructor of the most derived class does not specify a mem-initializer for the virtual base class V ...". In the code submitted, the constructor of the most derived class DOES specify a mem-initializer, so none of what follows applies.
I think that there is a bit of history at play here. All compilers I know reject the code, I suspect because CFront rejected it, and nobody noticed that CFront was in error here. Note that the absence of a default initializer, when it is required, is undefined behavior, so a trivial fix would be to replace the call to the (non-existing) constructor in the in-charge constructor with a call to a function which displays an error message and calls abort. A better fix would be to not generate the in-charge constructor at all, resulting in a linker error if the class was ever instantiated. (Not possible here, since the class is abstract, but possible in the more general case.) -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19249
