------- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-14 03:08 ------- Quoting the standard again (the same passage which we all quoted): "A mem-initializer naming a virtual base class shall be ignored during execution of the constructor of any class that is not the most derived class."
A mem-initializer is always implicated for base cases even if not named explicitly. So this is still invalid code in my mind. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19249
