------- Comment #14 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-11-16 13:58 -------
(In reply to comment #13)
> Even the text of the warning is misleading. Why "should" it be explicitly
> initialised, when the standard says it will be implicitly initialised if a
> suitable default constructor exists?
>
> If you want to use a non-default constructor for the virtual base then you
> need
> to call it explicitly. But if the default constructor is what you want, why
> should you have to do extra work?
>
I wonder as well. Removing this warning will close at least two PRs...
--
manu at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Last reconfirmed|2005-12-11 23:10:09 |2007-11-16 13:58:57
date| |
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=11159
