This is the mail archive of the gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org mailing list for the GCC project.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

[Bug c++/70462] Unnecessary "base object constructor" for final classes


https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70462

--- Comment #3 from JÃrg Richter <joerg.richter@pdv-fs.de> ---
Well, my real problem is related to coverage analysis.  Function coverage will
show the base object constructor as not called.  But my concrete test case is
more complex and involves virtual functions and inheritance.  Might me that an
alias is not enough in the real code.

A different solution to my problem might be to exclude the base object
constructor from coverage analysis.  

A related problem: I also have a class that is always used as a base class and
will never be constructed directly (because it has pure virtual functions). 
The "complete object constructor" is emitted nevertheless.  But function
coverage marks it as never called.

Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]