--- Comment #11 from jason at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-02-14 23:11 ---
Subject: Bug 5645
Author: jason
Date: Thu Feb 14 23:11:04 2008
New Revision: 132324
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=132324
Log:
PR c++/5645
PR c++/11159
* class.c
--- Comment #12 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-02-14 23:39 ---
Fixed in GCC 4.3 per Jason's commit. Not worth fixing it in branches.
--
manu at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #8 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-02-13 11:13 ---
*** Bug 11159 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
manu at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #9 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-02-13 11:23 ---
Created an attachment (id=15136)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=15136action=view)
patch and testcases
This patch contains an attempt to implement the suggestions given here:
--- Comment #10 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-02-13 11:38 ---
Created an attachment (id=15137)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=15137action=view)
patch and testcases
Correct patch, the previous one did not contain pr11159.C
--
manu at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #7 from jwakely dot gcc at gmail dot com 2007-11-14 13:38
---
Isn't this warning simply bogus? In other contexts if a default constructor is
available it will be used without warning, whether explicitly used or not.
e.g.
non-virtual bases in constructor initializer lists
--- Comment #6 from patchapp at dberlin dot org 2007-10-30 03:46 ---
Subject: Bug number PR c++/5645
A patch for this bug has been added to the patch tracker.
The mailing list url for the patch is
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2007-10/msg01639.html
--
--- Comment #5 from nathan at codesourcery dot com 2007-10-18 09:43 ---
Subject: Re: gcc warns that pure virtual class not explicitly
initialized
manu at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
--- Comment #4 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-10-17 11:26 ---
Does this patch makes
--- Comment #4 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-10-17 11:26 ---
Does this patch makes any sense? This needs testcases (suggestions for extra
testcases are welcome), Changelog, bootstrap + testing and proper submission.
--- init.c 2007-09-20 15:13:00.0 +0100
+++
--- Comment #3 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-02-09 14:02 ---
Is this a duplicate of PR 11159 or are they different?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=5645
--
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
Last reconfirmed|2004-04-26 19:41:58 |2005-06-20 04:06:31
date|
11 matches
Mail list logo