[Bug c++/45249] Indirect variable parameters sometimes cause segmentation fault

["redi at gcc dot gnu dot org" <gcc-bugzilla at gcc dot gnu dot org>]

------- Comment #34 from redi at gcc dot gnu dot org  2010-08-11 21:27 -------
(In reply to comment #25)
> In other words my code is not portable because GCC is not doing what it should.
> GCC causes code not to be portable a lot of times, like in the following case
> (which does not compile because of GCC's shortcommings):
> 
> class Temp {
> public:
> Temp(int b);
> Temp(Temp& t);
> void operator=(Temp& t);
> };
> 
> void func(int a, class Temp& b, int c);
> 
> func(10, Temp(20), 30); // error

ISO/IEC 14882:2003(E) 8.5.3 [dcl.init.ref] paragraph 5

> This code does not compile in GCC, and so is not portable. That's shortcomming
> of GCC that makes my code be not portable, not me. Its GCC's fault that code
> that invokes Temp(20) as a parameter is not portable, not the programmer's
> fault.

ibid.

> Unfortunately, conversations like this one show that GCC will never be perfect,
> because people like you will insist that the compiler doesn't need to do what I
> said it should (even when facing the obvious references that I've posted), and
> prove that page 70 is right about warning programmers not to rely on compilers
> to do correct parameter placements.

What a charming idea, that a compiler could become perfect by doing "what I
said it should"

> My personal experience is that GCC is the cause for such portability problems.
> You still insist that GCC doesn't need to improve in this respect, and that
> shows why GCC will never be as good as other compilers. Microsoft, for example,
> appreciates comments like mine because it helps them improve the product, but
> you just want to dismiss it as bad code on my part. I know Microsoft's people
> get paid to do so, but, still, I'm talking about the right mind set.

Oh, how delightfully quaint!


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45249