OK.
On Fri, Oct 7, 2016 at 6:31 AM, Nathan Sidwell wrote:
> On 10/05/16 19:49, Jason Merrill wrote:
>
>> But DR 1658 says that B::B is *not* deleted (because A is not a
>> potentially constructed subobject). Implementing that might be
>> simpler than trying to have a deleted complete and non-del
On 10/05/16 19:49, Jason Merrill wrote:
But DR 1658 says that B::B is *not* deleted (because A is not a
potentially constructed subobject). Implementing that might be
simpler than trying to have a deleted complete and non-deleted base
constructor variant.
Always better to read the actual DR r
On 10/05/16 19:49, Jason Merrill wrote:
But DR 1658 says that B::B is *not* deleted (because A is not a
potentially constructed subobject).
oo, I'd not noticed that. It certainly might make things much simpler.
Essentially a check for ABSTRACT_TYPE_P somewhere in that code.
nathan
On Fri, Sep 30, 2016 at 1:39 PM, Nathan Sidwell wrote:
> PR 66443 concerns C++14 DR1611. It is now permitted to use the base-ctor of
> an abstract class whos complete ctor is deleted because of a virtual base
> issue. Specifically, given
>
> class A {
> A (int);
> // no default ctor in C++14
>
On 08/02/15 23:44, Jason Merrill wrote:
It seems to me that DR 1658 ignores vbases of abstract classes for determining
whether a destructor is deleted, but says nothing about exception
specifications.
DR 1351 specifically ignores vbases of abstract classes for determining the
exception specifi
On 08/01/2015 07:31 PM, Nathan Sidwell wrote:
Ok, this patch fixes things up. The previous version was a little too
lax, extending the logic of DR1611 to all synthesized functions.
However, this broke virtual synthesized dtors, in that an abstract
class's synthesized dtor's exception specificati
On 07/17/15 15:59, Nathan Sidwell wrote:
On 07/17/15 15:42, Jason Merrill wrote:
On 07/08/2015 10:50 AM, Nathan Sidwell wrote:
On 06/30/15 19:21, Nathan Sidwell wrote:
On 06/30/15 00:19, Jason Merrill wrote:
On 06/29/2015 06:57 PM, Nathan Sidwell wrote:
* method.c (synthesized_method_wal
On 07/17/15 15:42, Jason Merrill wrote:
On 07/08/2015 10:50 AM, Nathan Sidwell wrote:
On 06/30/15 19:21, Nathan Sidwell wrote:
On 06/30/15 00:19, Jason Merrill wrote:
On 06/29/2015 06:57 PM, Nathan Sidwell wrote:
* method.c (synthesized_method_walk): Skip virtual bases of
abstract cla
On 07/08/2015 10:50 AM, Nathan Sidwell wrote:
On 06/30/15 19:21, Nathan Sidwell wrote:
On 06/30/15 00:19, Jason Merrill wrote:
On 06/29/2015 06:57 PM, Nathan Sidwell wrote:
* method.c (synthesized_method_walk): Skip virtual bases of
abstract classes in C++14 mode.
Let's not limit thi
On 06/30/15 19:21, Nathan Sidwell wrote:
On 06/30/15 00:19, Jason Merrill wrote:
On 06/29/2015 06:57 PM, Nathan Sidwell wrote:
* method.c (synthesized_method_walk): Skip virtual bases of
abstract classes in C++14 mode.
Let's not limit this to C++14 mode; most DRs apply to earlier stan
On 06/30/15 00:19, Jason Merrill wrote:
On 06/29/2015 06:57 PM, Nathan Sidwell wrote:
* method.c (synthesized_method_walk): Skip virtual bases of
abstract classes in C++14 mode.
Let's not limit this to C++14 mode; most DRs apply to earlier standards as well.
ok, works for me.
(sorry
On 06/29/2015 06:57 PM, Nathan Sidwell wrote:
* method.c (synthesized_method_walk): Skip virtual bases of
abstract classes in C++14 mode.
Let's not limit this to C++14 mode; most DRs apply to earlier standards
as well.
Jason
12 matches
Mail list logo
