------- Additional Comments From bangerth at dealii dot org 2004-10-16 23:28 -------
Something is definitely wrong with this testcase. I think that storing and
printing the _this pointer is only obstructing the view of the problem
somehow, so consider this example here:
--------------------
int printf (const char *format, ...);
struct A {
A ()
{ printf ("A::A () : this = %p\n", this); }
A (const A & a)
{ printf ("A::A (const A&) : this = %p\n", this); }
~ A ()
{ printf ("A::~A () : this = %p\n", this); }
void print ()
{ printf ("print () : this = %p\n", this); }
};
struct B {
A a;
};
B b = { A () };
int main () {
b.a.print ();
}
------------------------
I think we all agree that we always have to have matching calls to
(copy) constructors and destructors for a this pointer, but we really
get this here:
g/x> c++ x.cc
g/x> ./a.out
A::A () : this = 0xbfffeaa0
print () : this = 0x80499c8
A::~A () : this = 0x80499c8
I don't think this can ever be right.
This used to work in gcc2.95, but is broken between 3.2 and 3.4. It works
fine in mainline again, though, so this is a 3.3/3.4 branch regression
only.
W.
--
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Keywords|missed-optimization |wrong-code
Known to fail| |3.2.3 3.3.5 3.4.2
Known to work| |2.95 4.0.0
Last reconfirmed|2004-06-03 22:57:00 |2004-10-16 23:28:23
date| |
Target Milestone|--- |3.4.3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=15172
