[Bug c++/31988] new operator should not permit default first parameter

[paolo at gcc dot gnu dot org]

--- Comment #7 from paolo at gcc dot gnu dot org  2007-10-26 18:32 ---
Subject: Bug 31988

Author: paolo
Date: Fri Oct 26 18:32:41 2007
New Revision: 129657

URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=129657
Log:
cp/
2007-10-26  Paolo Carlini  [EMAIL PROTECTED]

PR c++/31988
* decl2.c (coerce_new_type): Do not allow a default argument for
the first parameter.

testsuite/
2007-10-26  Paolo Carlini  [EMAIL PROTECTED]

PR c++/31988
* g++.dg/init/new25.C: New.

Added:
trunk/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/init/new25.C
Modified:
trunk/gcc/cp/ChangeLog
trunk/gcc/cp/decl2.c
trunk/gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31988

[Bug c++/31988] new operator should not permit default first parameter

[pcarlini at suse dot de]

--- Comment #8 from pcarlini at suse dot de  2007-10-26 18:34 ---
Fixed for 4.3.0.


-- 

pcarlini at suse dot de changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
 Resolution||FIXED
   Target Milestone|--- |4.3.0


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31988

[Bug c++/31988] new operator should not permit default first parameter

[pcarlini at suse dot de]

--- Comment #2 from pcarlini at suse dot de  2007-09-28 15:43 ---
Patch at:

  http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2007-09/msg01711.html


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31988

[Bug c++/31988] new operator should not permit default first parameter

[andrew dot stubbs at st dot com]

--- Comment #3 from andrew dot stubbs at st dot com  2007-09-28 16:00 
---
I'm not a GCC expert, but that patch looks like it will silently change the
behaviour of the compiler when -pedantic is not given.

I would suggest that the first parameter should either be a regular,
non-pedantic warning, or else should honour the default as requested by the
user (as a language extension).


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31988

[Bug c++/31988] new operator should not permit default first parameter

[andrew dot stubbs at st dot com]

--- Comment #6 from andrew dot stubbs at st dot com  2007-09-28 16:28 
---
(In reply to comment #4)
 When -pedantic is not given (the default) a pedwarn is an hard error. A 
 pedwarn
 becomes a warning when -permissive is passes (and the code is thus accepted as
 an extension, which I would find useful for legacy code). But I have no strong
 opinion, in general.

Ah, my mistake. I have the sense of pedwarn backwards. For some reason, I
thought it meant give a warning in pedantic mode only. Well, it is Friday. :)

Of course, with the true meaning of pedwarn, this patch still provides no way
to get back to the current state, even with -fpermissive. However, since the
current behaviour is wrong, and I for one have no interest in such an
extension, I'll not complain.


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31988

[Bug c++/31988] new operator should not permit default first parameter

[pcarlini at suse dot de]

--- Comment #4 from pcarlini at suse dot de  2007-09-28 16:11 ---
(In reply to comment #3)
 I'm not a GCC expert, but that patch looks like it will silently change the
 behaviour of the compiler when -pedantic is not given.

When -pedantic is not given (the default) a pedwarn is an hard error. A pedwarn
becomes a warning when -permissive is passes (and the code is thus accepted as
an extension, which I would find useful for legacy code). But I have no strong
opinion, in general.


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31988

[Bug c++/31988] new operator should not permit default first parameter

[pcarlini at suse dot de]

--- Comment #5 from pcarlini at suse dot de  2007-09-28 16:20 ---
About the behavior when -fpermissive is passed - essentially, removing the
default and going ahead, I followed the other pedwarn in the same function -
but the alternate behavior, not doing anything special and just going ahead
after the warning and accepting the code would be also ok with me.


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31988

[Bug c++/31988] new operator should not permit default first parameter

[pcarlini at suse dot de]

--- Comment #1 from pcarlini at suse dot de  2007-09-22 00:04 ---
On it.


-- 

pcarlini at suse dot de changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot gnu   |pcarlini at suse dot de
   |dot org |
 Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
 Ever Confirmed|0   |1
   Last reconfirmed|-00-00 00:00:00 |2007-09-22 00:04:31
   date||


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31988