This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: C++ PATCH for c++/54325 (wrong error initializing abstract base class)
- From: Gabriel Dos Reis <gdr at integrable-solutions dot net>
- To: Matthias Klose <doko at ubuntu dot com>
- Cc: Jason Merrill <jason at redhat dot com>, gcc-patches List <gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- Date: Fri, 7 Dec 2012 07:34:30 -0600
- Subject: Re: C++ PATCH for c++/54325 (wrong error initializing abstract base class)
- References: <50C1790B.3040704@redhat.com> <50C1B327.9060006@ubuntu.com>
On Fri, Dec 7, 2012 at 3:13 AM, Matthias Klose <doko@ubuntu.com> wrote:
> Am 07.12.2012 06:05, schrieb Jason Merrill:
>> It's perfectly OK to initialize a base class of abstract type; it's only an
>> error to create a full object of such a type. So this patch moves the check
>> from more generic initialization code out into a function that's definitely
>> creating a new object.
>>
>> Tested x86_64-pc-linux-gnu, applying to trunk and 4.7.
>
> this doesn't build on the branch:
>
> ../gcc/cp/tree.c: In function 'build_aggr_init_expr':
> ../gcc/cp/tree.c:399:1: error: parameter name omitted
>
> this fixes the bootstrap, currently running the testsuite.
>
> --- cp/tree.c~ 2012-12-07 10:01:16.665415647 +0100
> +++ cp/tree.c 2012-12-07 10:11:01.373410862 +0100
> @@ -396,7 +396,8 @@
> callable. */
>
> tree
> -build_aggr_init_expr (tree type, tree init, tsubst_flags_t /*complain*/)
> +build_aggr_init_expr (tree type, tree init,
> + tsubst_flags_t complain ATTRIBUTE_UNUSED)
> {
> tree fn;
> tree slot;
>
We should definitely teach the compiler to accept the former and not
be silly in requiring the latter when C++.
-- Gaby