This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: PR c++/28511
- From: Andrew Pinski <pinskia at gmail dot com>
- To: NightStrike <nightstrike at gmail dot com>
- Cc: Fabien CHÃNE <fabien dot chene at gmail dot com>, gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: Fri, 9 Apr 2010 13:18:17 -0700
- Subject: Re: PR c++/28511
- References: <w2t8640d6051003310003m2e65a1c1se91b0adb8b1de86a@mail.gmail.com> <t2zb609cb3b1004091316g946908e1s2e205e5347319e95@mail.gmail.com>
On Fri, Apr 9, 2010 at 1:16 PM, NightStrike <nightstrike@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 3:03 AM, Fabien CHÃNE <fabien.chene@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Hello,
>>
>> The problem is that gcc incorrectly accepts default-initialization of
>> const members and references members, when using the operator new
>> without the new-initializer.
>> I 've added a check in build_new_1 to fix that early so that 'new A'
>> can be rejected (without assigning it).
>>
>> bootstrapped and regtested on x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu against trunk.
>>
>> --
>> Fab
>>
>
> PR28511 looks like it's closed as invalid:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28511
>
> Am I looking at the wrong thing?
The number in the subject is wrong, it should be 25811 :).
-- Pinski