------- Comment #4 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-10-17 11:26 -------
Does this patch makes any sense? This needs testcases (suggestions for extra
testcases are welcome), Changelog, bootstrap + testing and proper submission.
--- init.c 2007-09-20 15:13:00.000000000 +0100
+++ init.c.fixed 2007-10-17 12:20:24.000000000 +0100
@@ -684,10 +684,11 @@ emit_mem_initializers (tree mem_inits)
/* If these initializations are taking place in a copy
constructor, the base class should probably be explicitly
- initialized. */
+ initialized unless it is nearly empty. */
if (extra_warnings && !arguments
&& DECL_COPY_CONSTRUCTOR_P (current_function_decl)
- && TYPE_NEEDS_CONSTRUCTING (BINFO_TYPE (subobject)))
+ && TYPE_NEEDS_CONSTRUCTING (BINFO_TYPE (subobject))
+ && !CLASSTYPE_NEARLY_EMPTY_P (BINFO_TYPE (subobject))
warning (OPT_Wextra, "%Jbase class %q#T should be explicitly
initialized in the "
"copy constructor",
current_function_decl, BINFO_TYPE (subobject));
--
manu at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Last reconfirmed|2005-12-11 21:53:55 |2007-10-17 11:26:12
date| |
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=5645
