--- Comment #7 from oschmidt at gmx dot net 2006-10-12 17:10 ---
>So a compiler warning for this makes really sense
>not only for f3() but also for f4().
So I think it would be a good idea to reopen this bug report. It is then not a
bug report about inproper compiler behaviour
--- Comment #6 from oschmidt at gmx dot net 2006-10-12 17:03 ---
> You therefore initialize a variable with itself. This is
> a documented way to generate uninitialized variables and
> Here's the right combination of flags that warns (for f3() only):
Thank you for your a
--- Comment #3 from oschmidt at gmx dot net 2006-09-18 08:47 ---
> > So which version do you think have a bug?
>
> I don't know which behaviour should be correct C++, but I think it is
> dangerous
> that an object with undefined content is constructed without ev
--- Comment #2 from oschmidt at gmx dot net 2006-09-18 08:35 ---
> default operator= with lhs and rhs as the same.
if it would be the operator= this would be ok. But it's the default copy
constructor that is called withed lhs and rhs the same and such an object with
undefined
;
}
///
--
Summary: Copy constructor is called with "this == &rhs"
Product: gcc
Version: 4.0.4
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: oschmidt at gmx dot net
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29117
