This is the mail archive of the
gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: implicit destructors and assignment operators (C++)
- To: "Simpson, Kenny" <Kenny dot Simpson at gs dot com>
- Subject: Re: implicit destructors and assignment operators (C++)
- From: Nathan Sidwell <nathan at codesourcery dot com>
- Date: Fri, 01 Dec 2000 16:19:10 +0000
- CC: "'gcc-bugs at gcc dot gnu dot org'" <gcc-bugs at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- Organization: Codesourcery LLC
- References: <E594FE85086FD411901000D0B7BA3454E299FA@gsny45e.et.gs.com>
"Simpson, Kenny" wrote:
> The first problem is that the excpetion specs for virtual destructors seems
> to be ignored.
> The first example is almost straight from an example in the Standard.
this is a known bug, we don't generate the correct exception specs for synthesized
methods -- so can't check 'em either. [well known to us, I don't think we
document it anywhere other than the compiler source :-(]
> The second problem is that the wrong operator= seems the be generated, and
> even the generated
> operator= has very odd behavior. The dangerous problem is that a non-const
> operator= is called
> in the base, when a const operator= is invoked on the derived class.
> The resulting implicit operator= seems to be something like:
Yup, I believe I fixed this last night (bug 91) -- let me know if an updated
compiler fails to fix this part of your report.
nathan
--
Dr Nathan Sidwell :: http://www.codesourcery.com :: CodeSourcery LLC
'But that's a lie.' - 'Yes it is. What's your point?'
nathan@codesourcery.com : http://www.cs.bris.ac.uk/~nathan/ : nathan@acm.org