[Bug c++/96876] missing check for destructibility of base classes in aggregate initialization
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96876 Jason Merrill changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|--- |12.0 Resolution|--- |FIXED Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED --- Comment #3 from Jason Merrill --- Fixed for GCC 12.
[Bug c++/96876] missing check for destructibility of base classes in aggregate initialization
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96876 --- Comment #2 from CVS Commits --- The master branch has been updated by Jason Merrill : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:53cac72cf0821217f99d0640ba72cc2999ec7dc0 commit r12-7117-g53cac72cf0821217f99d0640ba72cc2999ec7dc0 Author: Jason Merrill Date: Fri Feb 4 18:25:51 2022 -0500 c++: cleanup constant-init'd members [PR96876] This is a case missed by my recent fixes to aggregate initialization and exception cleanup for PR94041 et al: we also need to clean up members with constant initialization if initialization of a later member throws. It also occurs to me that we needn't bother building the cleanups if -fno-exceptions; build_vec_init already doesn't. PR c++/96876 gcc/cp/ChangeLog: * typeck2.cc (split_nonconstant_init_1): Push cleanups for preceding members with constant initialization. (maybe_push_temp_cleanup): Do nothing if -fno-exceptions. gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog: * g++.dg/cpp1z/aggr-base11.C: New test. * g++.dg/eh/aggregate2.C: New test.
[Bug c++/96876] missing check for destructibility of base classes in aggregate initialization
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96876 Jason Merrill changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |jason at gcc dot gnu.org CC||jason at gcc dot gnu.org
[Bug c++/96876] missing check for destructibility of base classes in aggregate initialization
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96876 Marek Polacek changed: What|Removed |Added CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org Ever confirmed|0 |1 Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed||2020-08-31 --- Comment #1 from Marek Polacek --- Confirmed. Doesn't seem to be a regression.