This is the mail archive of the
gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
[Bug libstdc++/19544] Difference in behaviour if default constructor added
- From: "chris at bubblescope dot net" <gcc-bugzilla at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- To: gcc-bugs at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: 20 Jan 2005 19:25:14 -0000
- Subject: [Bug libstdc++/19544] Difference in behaviour if default constructor added
- References: <20050120125055.19544.chris@bubblescope.net>
- Reply-to: gcc-bugzilla at gcc dot gnu dot org
------- Additional Comments From chris at bubblescope dot net 2005-01-20 19:25 -------
I never thought it was a bug in the library :)
I however throught (incorrectly) that copying an unassigned pointer was valid,
mainly as some other test case was considering constructing
std::vector<std::list<int>::iterator> v(1). Now I realise that in fact copying
an unassigned pointer is undefined behaviour, so of course the error is fine :)
Sorry
I'm still curious as to why the error doesn't appear if let g++ generate a
default constructor, as from my reading of 12.1/7, the default generated
constructor should be "ptr() {}", so the error should still appear. Am I reading
it wrong?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19544