This is the mail archive of the
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: <email@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org>
On Fri, Apr 9, 2010 at 1:16 PM, NightStrike <email@example.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 3:03 AM, Fabien CHÃNE <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
>> 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.
> PR28511 looks like it's closed as invalid:
> Am I looking at the wrong thing?
The number in the subject is wrong, it should be 25811 :).