https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70417
Anthony Sharp changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||anthonysharp15 at gmail dot com
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19377
--- Comment #15 from Anthony Sharp ---
This should now be fixed as part of my patch:
https://gcc.gnu.org/git/?p=gcc.git;a=commit;h=be246ac2d26e1cb072f205bf97d5eac150220f3f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55120
--- Comment #12 from Anthony Sharp ---
Okay, so it actually turns out public virtual bases CAN be derived from, since
the C++ spec literally gives an example of just that (e.g. see
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55120
Anthony Sharp changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||anthonysharp15 at gmail dot com
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17314
--- Comment #26 from Anthony Sharp ---
Fixed. It seems the issue to do with the virtual class constructors is a
duplicate of 55120 (https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55120).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19377
Anthony Sharp changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||anthonysharp15 at gmail dot com
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17314
--- Comment #25 from Anthony Sharp ---
Hopefully (pending approval) the original bug is now fixed, even if it did take
a long time! I agree that compilers should match the standard where reasonable
to do so (like in this case), but I can't
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17314
--- Comment #23 from Anthony Sharp ---
The patch is now on the mailing list
(https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2021-January/562835.html).
Please take my last comment with a pinch of salt ... I was mainly trying to sum
up what has
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17314
Anthony Sharp changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||anthonysharp15 at gmail dot com
---
