This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: mutually-recursive types and an old puzzle
- From: "Gabriel Dos Reis" <gdr at acm dot org>
- To: "Nathan Sidwell" <nathan at codesourcery dot com>
- Cc: "Joe Buck" <joe dot buck at synopsys dot com>,"Zack Weinberg" <zack at codesourcery dot com>,"Chris Lattner" <sabre at nondot dot org>, gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: Sat, 3 Jul 2004 01:23:50 +0200 (CEST)
- Subject: Re: mutually-recursive types and an old puzzle
- References: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0406291930070.1537-100000@nondot.org><32877.::ffff:128.194.146.36.1088556186.squirrel@webmail.nerim.net><20040629175356.A11677@synopsys.com><32929.::ffff:128.194.146.36.1088557164.squirrel@webmail.nerim.net><20040630122238.A23557@synopsys.com> <877jtox2ef.fsf@taltos.codesourcery.com> <32822.::ffff:24.250.169.187.1088649121.squirrel@webmail.nerim.net> <20040701091139.A20201@synopsys.com> <40E44326.30807@codesourcery.com>
- Reply-to: gdr at acm dot org
Nathan Sidwell:
> The problem with C++ is that if you declare *any* constructor, you have
> to declare the copy constructor (if you want one), and if you declare it,
That is false. You don't need to declare a copy-constructor if
you just happen to declare one constructor (which is not copy).
You're probably thinking of the default constructor.
But, the ABI is concerned only with copy-constructor and
destructor.
> it's non-trivial. You need to be able to say 'make me the default copy
> ctor'.
-- Gaby