This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: a warning to implement
- From: Gabriel Dos Reis <gdr at codesourcery dot com>
- To: dewar at gnat dot com (Robert Dewar)
- Cc: Dautrevaux at microprocess dot com, gdr at codesourcery dot com, gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org, nathan at cs dot bris dot ac dot uk, rsandifo at redhat dot com
- Date: 08 Feb 2002 17:28:31 +0100
- Subject: Re: a warning to implement
- Organization: CodeSourcery, LLC
- References: <20020208162130.56717F28CD@nile.gnat.com>
email@example.com (Robert Dewar) writes:
| >>| I think here we should REALLY had a warning;
| Yes, good point from Bernard, I agree this is a case that really needs
| a warning.
There was no good point. The class I showed wasn't designed to have a
default constructor -- that is part of its specification. The
compiler (or Bernard) shouldn't insist on knowing more than the
There are already plenty of warnings there saying they know more than
thge programmer -- and in effect thery don't -- ending with being
completely unusable in modern C++; an example is -Weffc++ (or whatever
it is called).