[Bug c++/49372] Temporaries evaluated for arguments of a default constructors of array elements not destructed properly (?)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49372 Patrick Palka changed: What|Removed |Added CC||ppalka at gcc dot gnu.org See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill ||a/show_bug.cgi?id=92385 Target Milestone|--- |12.0 --- Comment #6 from Patrick Palka --- It seems this is fixed for GCC 12+ by r12-6326-ge948436eab818c.
[Bug c++/49372] Temporaries evaluated for arguments of a default constructors of array elements not destructed properly (?)
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49372 Kai Tietz ktietz at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED CC||ktietz at gcc dot gnu.org Resolution||INVALID --- Comment #2 from Kai Tietz ktietz at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-12-10 11:06:49 UTC --- This testcase seems to produce for trunk, 4.7, and 4.6 the output CCDD, which is proper as constructor of B is called by the array-constructor. Btw you will need option -std=c++11 on trunk to get this test compile without issues.
[Bug c++/49372] Temporaries evaluated for arguments of a default constructors of array elements not destructed properly (?)
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49372 --- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-12-10 13:14:56 UTC --- Kai, I don't think anyone disputes that B's constructor is called, the question is why 12.2/4 doesn't apply.
[Bug c++/49372] Temporaries evaluated for arguments of a default constructors of array elements not destructed properly (?)
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49372 Kai Tietz ktietz at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|RESOLVED|NEW Last reconfirmed||2012-12-10 Resolution|INVALID | Ever Confirmed|0 |1 --- Comment #4 from Kai Tietz ktietz at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-12-10 13:42:30 UTC --- (In reply to comment #3) Kai, I don't think anyone disputes that B's constructor is called, the question is why 12.2/4 doesn't apply. Well, we have here 5.2.2 which says A function call is a postfix expression followed by parentheses containing a possibly empty, comma-separated list of expressions which constitute the arguments to the function. But we don't have here an explicit function-call. And an implicit call is not an expression, hence, not a part of any full expression, and so we don't have a sequence-point. Not sure if specification intended it differently, but by its current wording I would assume that current implementation is right. But indeed 12.4 seems to be violated here. There are two contexts in which temporaries are destroyed at a different point than the end of the fullexpression. The first context is when a default constructor is called to initialize an element of an array. If the constructor has one or more default arguments, the destruction of every temporary created in a default argument expression is sequenced before the construction of the next array element, if any. So there is an antagonism in spec. I will reopen it. sorry, didn't read about 12.4
[Bug c++/49372] Temporaries evaluated for arguments of a default constructors of array elements not destructed properly (?)
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49372 --- Comment #5 from Johannes Schaub schaub.johannes at googlemail dot com 2012-12-10 16:42:59 UTC --- (In reply to comment #4) (In reply to comment #3) Kai, I don't think anyone disputes that B's constructor is called, the question is why 12.2/4 doesn't apply. Well, we have here 5.2.2 which says A function call is a postfix expression followed by parentheses containing a possibly empty, comma-separated list of expressions which constitute the arguments to the function. But we don't have here an explicit function-call. And an implicit call is not an expression, hence, not a part of any full expression, and so we don't have a sequence-point. Not sure if specification intended it differently, but by its current wording I would assume that current implementation is right. See 1.9p10. The implicit function call is considered to be an expression.
[Bug c++/49372] Temporaries evaluated for arguments of a default constructors of array elements not destructed properly (?)
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49372 --- Comment #1 from Johannes Schaub schaub.johannes at googlemail dot com 2011-06-11 13:46:46 UTC --- To elaborate on it, I have the following weird behavior: - GCC4.6 outputs nothing for the program (on my linux machine). That seems definitely wrong in any case. - GCC4.7 4.7.0 20110517 (experimental), using a mingw nightly build, generates an executable that crashes when running: [js@HOST2 cpp]$ ~/w64/bin/i686-w64-mingw32-g++ -std=c++0x -O1 -o a.exe main1.cpp [js@HOST2 cpp]$ wine ./a.exe Cwine: Unhandled page fault on read access to 0x at address (nil) (thread 0025), starting debugger... - The same GCC4.7 when using -O2 does not crash and print CCDD: [js@HOST2 cpp]$ ~/w64/bin/i686-w64-mingw32-g++ -std=c++0x -O2 -o a.exe main1.cpp [js@HOST2 cpp]$ wine ./a.exe fixme:ntoskrnl:KeInitializeSpinLock stub: 0x5477a4 C C D D I don't know precisely whether this is a problem with wine or a temporary problem with that nightly build of GCC I was using. My apologies if GCC trunk works differently!
