[Bug c++/54812] [C++11] Delete expression doesn't respect access of defaulted destructor
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54812 Che Amaya changed: What|Removed |Added CC||katzfiller5 at gmail dot com --- Comment #15 from Che Amaya --- Timely post ! For my two cents , if others wants to merge PDF or PNG files , my friend came across a tool here http://www.altomerge.com/; >http://www.AltoMerge.com.
[Bug c++/54812] [C++11] Delete expression doesn't respect access of defaulted destructor
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54812 Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added CC||hs at xmission dot com --- Comment #14 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org --- *** Bug 61087 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
[Bug c++/54812] [C++11] Delete expression doesn't respect access of defaulted destructor
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54812 --- Comment #13 from paolo at gcc dot gnu.org paolo at gcc dot gnu.org --- Author: paolo Date: Fri Oct 25 10:54:56 2013 New Revision: 204057 URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=204057root=gccview=rev Log: 2013-10-25 Paolo Carlini paolo.carl...@oracle.com PR c++/54812 * g++.dg/cpp0x/defaulted47.C: New. Added: trunk/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/cpp0x/defaulted47.C Modified: trunk/gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog
[Bug c++/54812] [C++11] Delete expression doesn't respect access of defaulted destructor
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54812 Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution|--- |FIXED Target Milestone|--- |4.9.0 --- Comment #12 from Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com --- Thus this is fixed in r203985.
[Bug c++/54812] [C++11] Delete expression doesn't respect access of defaulted destructor
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54812 --- Comment #9 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org --- *** Bug 56429 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
[Bug c++/54812] [C++11] Delete expression doesn't respect access of defaulted destructor
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54812
--- Comment #10 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Paolo Carlini from comment #3)
Of course it should be fixed, it *must* be fixed, actually! And it's really
annoying that this bug affecting private defaulted destructors (which, I
bet, aren't that common for most programs not using SFINAE tricks!?!)
The bug affects protected destructors too, and they're commonly used for base
classes to prevent deletion via pointer-to-base. This bug means you can't make
them trivial by defining them as defaulted.
The problem isn't confined to delete expressions as the example from PR56429
shows:
class A
{
A() = default;
};
struct B : A { };
B b;
[Bug c++/54812] [C++11] Delete expression doesn't respect access of defaulted destructor
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54812 --- Comment #11 from Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com --- Jason call if we want this to be a P2. Well, maybe some wrong code bugs I recently bumped to P2 should be P1 ;)
[Bug c++/54812] [C++11] Delete expression doesn't respect access of defaulted destructor
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54812 Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added CC||redi at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #8 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org --- *** Bug 57595 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
[Bug c++/54812] [C++11] Delete expression doesn't respect access of defaulted destructor
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54812 --- Comment #7 from Jason Merrill jason at gcc dot gnu.org --- Various places in the compiler need to be updated to not assume that trivial implies callable.
[Bug c++/54812] [C++11] Delete expression doesn't respect access of defaulted destructor
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54812 --- Comment #6 from Daniel Krügler daniel.kruegler at googlemail dot com 2012-10-06 08:11:48 UTC --- (In reply to comment #5) I double-checked whether this might be related to http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/cwg_active.html#1507 from a different perspective, but I'm pretty sure it isn't. 12.4 p11 seems very clear that the destructor would be called implicitly here and that access checking happens.
[Bug c++/54812] [C++11] Delete expression doesn't respect access of defaulted destructor
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54812 Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed||2012-10-05 Ever Confirmed|0 |1 --- Comment #1 from Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com 2012-10-05 20:53:35 UTC --- Uhm, this is not trivial to fix. The difference between P1 and P3 is that for the former from build_delete we call build_dtor_call which eventually also calls the required perform_or_defer_access_check, whereas for the latter the function just notices that TYPE_HAS_TRIVIAL_DESTRUCTOR and early returns (via build_op_delete_call). Arguably, a TYPE_HAS_TRIVIAL_DESTRUCTOR true for a destructor which actually is private and can't be called sounds a bit strange but for sure the choice makes sense wrt the rest of the front-end and the standard... I'll double check soon a few things. Anyway, here, I only wanted to ask you if this is a show-stopper for your work, because I don't know how much time it will take.
[Bug c++/54812] [C++11] Delete expression doesn't respect access of defaulted destructor
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54812 --- Comment #2 from Daniel Krügler daniel.kruegler at googlemail dot com 2012-10-05 21:00:31 UTC --- (In reply to comment #1) Anyway, here, I only wanted to ask you if this is a show-stopper for your work, because I don't know how much time it will take. While I think that this should be fixed, it will only prevent that I would directly convert is_constructible to use the combined ::delete ::new ((void*) nullptr) T(args) expression. Our current implementation is not sensitive to this problem, because we use is_destructible within. I noticed that there are still a bunches of opportunities to simplify is_constructible (and friends) because a lot of previous compiler defects have been fixed. So, really no need to hurry!
[Bug c++/54812] [C++11] Delete expression doesn't respect access of defaulted destructor
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54812 --- Comment #3 from Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com 2012-10-05 21:08:04 UTC --- Of course it should be fixed, it *must* be fixed, actually! And it's really annoying that this bug affecting private defaulted destructors (which, I bet, aren't that common for most programs not using SFINAE tricks!?!) is preventing us from deploying right now the very elegant ::delete ::new pattern which otherwise finally works pretty well. What can I add? Do your best, and thanks again!
[Bug c++/54812] [C++11] Delete expression doesn't respect access of defaulted destructor
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54812 Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jason at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #4 from Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com 2012-10-05 21:10:25 UTC --- Let's ask Jason right now, if he can see a smart way to do access control on defaulted destructors...
[Bug c++/54812] [C++11] Delete expression doesn't respect access of defaulted destructor
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54812
--- Comment #5 from Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com 2012-10-05
23:25:47 UTC ---
By the way, this compiles:
struct P3 {
private:
~P3() = default;
};
P3 p3;
thus there is little hope that we get an error for #22 ..
