Re: C++0x Constructor Delegation take 2

["Doug Gregor" <doug dot gregor at gmail dot com>]

Hi Pedro,

With your patch, I'm starting to see a new failure in C++0x mode. I'm
not sure if this is a change from C++98 to C++0x, or whether it's
revealing a bug in the delegating constructors code:

The test case is gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/init/brace6.C in Subversion,
also shown below. In C++0x mode, we don't emit the error for the
second dg-error and we emit something different for the third
dg-error.

 - Doug

/* PR c++/30759 */
/* { dg-do "compile" } */

struct A {
  A(int) { }
};

struct B {
  B(const B&);
  int b;
};

struct C {};

struct D { int c; };

int main()
{
  int i = { 1 };
  int j = { 1, 2 }; /* { dg-error "requires one element" } */
  A a = { 6 }; /* { dg-error "initializer for non" } */
  B b = { 6 }; /* { dg-error "initializer for non" } */
  C c = { 6 }; /* { dg-error "too many initializers" } */
  D d = { 6 };
}


On 4/24/07, Doug Gregor <doug.gregor@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Pedro,
>
> I have a few small comments to make about this version of the patch.
> Otherwise, it looks good to me. However, I don't have the ability to
> approve it. Nathan, could you take a look?
>
> Index: gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/cpp0x/dc_02.C
> ===================================================================
> --- gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/cpp0x/dc_02.C  (revisão 0)
> +++ gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/cpp0x/dc_02.C  (revisão 0)
> @@ -0,0 +1,35 @@
> +// { dg-do compile }
> +// { dg-options --std=gnu++0x }
>
> I suggest using "-std=c++0x", since delegating constructors are in the
> C++0x Working Paper (we're not relying on extensions at all).
>
> +/* Initialize current class with INIT, a TREE_LIST of
> +   arguments for a target constructor. If TREE_LIST is void_type_node,
> +   an empty initializer list was given.  */
> +
> +static void
> +perform_target_ctor (tree init)
>
> I suggest adding a comment stating that this routine implements the
> delegating constructors feature of C++0x.
>
>   - Doug