| Message ID | 50C1B327.9060006@ubuntu.com |
|---|---|
| State | New |
| Headers | show |
On Fri, Dec 07, 2012 at 10:13:11AM +0100, Matthias Klose wrote: > Am 07.12.2012 06:05, schrieb Jason Merrill: > > It's perfectly OK to initialize a base class of abstract type; it's only an > > error to create a full object of such a type. So this patch moves the check > > from more generic initialization code out into a function that's definitely > > creating a new object. > > > > Tested x86_64-pc-linux-gnu, applying to trunk and 4.7. > > this doesn't build on the branch: > > ../gcc/cp/tree.c: In function 'build_aggr_init_expr': > ../gcc/cp/tree.c:399:1: error: parameter name omitted > > this fixes the bootstrap, currently running the testsuite. Please commit as obvious with appropriate ChangeLog entry. > --- cp/tree.c~ 2012-12-07 10:01:16.665415647 +0100 > +++ cp/tree.c 2012-12-07 10:11:01.373410862 +0100 > @@ -396,7 +396,8 @@ > callable. */ > > tree > -build_aggr_init_expr (tree type, tree init, tsubst_flags_t /*complain*/) > +build_aggr_init_expr (tree type, tree init, > + tsubst_flags_t complain ATTRIBUTE_UNUSED) > { > tree fn; > tree slot; Jakub
Am 07.12.2012 10:17, schrieb Jakub Jelinek: > On Fri, Dec 07, 2012 at 10:13:11AM +0100, Matthias Klose wrote: >> Am 07.12.2012 06:05, schrieb Jason Merrill: >>> It's perfectly OK to initialize a base class of abstract type; it's only an >>> error to create a full object of such a type. So this patch moves the check >>> from more generic initialization code out into a function that's definitely >>> creating a new object. >>> >>> Tested x86_64-pc-linux-gnu, applying to trunk and 4.7. >> >> this doesn't build on the branch: >> >> ../gcc/cp/tree.c: In function 'build_aggr_init_expr': >> ../gcc/cp/tree.c:399:1: error: parameter name omitted >> >> this fixes the bootstrap, currently running the testsuite. > > Please commit as obvious with appropriate ChangeLog entry. > >> --- cp/tree.c~ 2012-12-07 10:01:16.665415647 +0100 >> +++ cp/tree.c 2012-12-07 10:11:01.373410862 +0100 >> @@ -396,7 +396,8 @@ >> callable. */ >> >> tree >> -build_aggr_init_expr (tree type, tree init, tsubst_flags_t /*complain*/) >> +build_aggr_init_expr (tree type, tree init, >> + tsubst_flags_t complain ATTRIBUTE_UNUSED) >> { >> tree fn; >> tree slot; > > Jakub > comitted. Matthias 2012-12-07 Matthias Klose <doko@ubuntu.com> * tree.c (build_aggr_init_expr): Add parameter name, mark as unused.
On Fri, Dec 7, 2012 at 3:13 AM, Matthias Klose <doko@ubuntu.com> wrote: > Am 07.12.2012 06:05, schrieb Jason Merrill: >> It's perfectly OK to initialize a base class of abstract type; it's only an >> error to create a full object of such a type. So this patch moves the check >> from more generic initialization code out into a function that's definitely >> creating a new object. >> >> Tested x86_64-pc-linux-gnu, applying to trunk and 4.7. > > this doesn't build on the branch: > > ../gcc/cp/tree.c: In function 'build_aggr_init_expr': > ../gcc/cp/tree.c:399:1: error: parameter name omitted > > this fixes the bootstrap, currently running the testsuite. > > --- cp/tree.c~ 2012-12-07 10:01:16.665415647 +0100 > +++ cp/tree.c 2012-12-07 10:11:01.373410862 +0100 > @@ -396,7 +396,8 @@ > callable. */ > > tree > -build_aggr_init_expr (tree type, tree init, tsubst_flags_t /*complain*/) > +build_aggr_init_expr (tree type, tree init, > + tsubst_flags_t complain ATTRIBUTE_UNUSED) > { > tree fn; > tree slot; > We should definitely teach the compiler to accept the former and not be silly in requiring the latter when C++. -- Gaby
On Fri, Dec 07, 2012 at 07:34:30AM -0600, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote: > On Fri, Dec 7, 2012 at 3:13 AM, Matthias Klose <doko@ubuntu.com> wrote: > > Am 07.12.2012 06:05, schrieb Jason Merrill: > >> It's perfectly OK to initialize a base class of abstract type; it's only an > >> error to create a full object of such a type. So this patch moves the check > >> from more generic initialization code out into a function that's definitely > >> creating a new object. > >> > >> Tested x86_64-pc-linux-gnu, applying to trunk and 4.7. > > > > this doesn't build on the branch: > > > > ../gcc/cp/tree.c: In function 'build_aggr_init_expr': > > ../gcc/cp/tree.c:399:1: error: parameter name omitted > > > > this fixes the bootstrap, currently running the testsuite. > > > > --- cp/tree.c~ 2012-12-07 10:01:16.665415647 +0100 > > +++ cp/tree.c 2012-12-07 10:11:01.373410862 +0100 > > @@ -396,7 +396,8 @@ > > callable. */ > > > > tree > > -build_aggr_init_expr (tree type, tree init, tsubst_flags_t /*complain*/) > > +build_aggr_init_expr (tree type, tree init, > > + tsubst_flags_t complain ATTRIBUTE_UNUSED) > > { > > tree fn; > > tree slot; > > > > We should definitely teach the compiler to accept the former and not > be silly in requiring the latter when C++. Except that GCC 4.7 doesn't mandate building with C++, so the sources must be valid C. Jakub
On Fri, Dec 7, 2012 at 7:39 AM, Jakub Jelinek <jakub@redhat.com> wrote: > On Fri, Dec 07, 2012 at 07:34:30AM -0600, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote: >> On Fri, Dec 7, 2012 at 3:13 AM, Matthias Klose <doko@ubuntu.com> wrote: >> > Am 07.12.2012 06:05, schrieb Jason Merrill: >> >> It's perfectly OK to initialize a base class of abstract type; it's only an >> >> error to create a full object of such a type. So this patch moves the check >> >> from more generic initialization code out into a function that's definitely >> >> creating a new object. >> >> >> >> Tested x86_64-pc-linux-gnu, applying to trunk and 4.7. >> > >> > this doesn't build on the branch: >> > >> > ../gcc/cp/tree.c: In function 'build_aggr_init_expr': >> > ../gcc/cp/tree.c:399:1: error: parameter name omitted >> > >> > this fixes the bootstrap, currently running the testsuite. >> > >> > --- cp/tree.c~ 2012-12-07 10:01:16.665415647 +0100 >> > +++ cp/tree.c 2012-12-07 10:11:01.373410862 +0100 >> > @@ -396,7 +396,8 @@ >> > callable. */ >> > >> > tree >> > -build_aggr_init_expr (tree type, tree init, tsubst_flags_t /*complain*/) >> > +build_aggr_init_expr (tree type, tree init, >> > + tsubst_flags_t complain ATTRIBUTE_UNUSED) >> > { >> > tree fn; >> > tree slot; >> > >> >> We should definitely teach the compiler to accept the former and not >> be silly in requiring the latter when C++. > > Except that GCC 4.7 doesn't mandate building with C++, so the sources must > be valid C. > > Jakub Right you are! Thanks, -- Gaby
--- cp/tree.c~ 2012-12-07 10:01:16.665415647 +0100 +++ cp/tree.c 2012-12-07 10:11:01.373410862 +0100 @@ -396,7 +396,8 @@ callable. */ tree -build_aggr_init_expr (tree type, tree init, tsubst_flags_t /*complain*/) +build_aggr_init_expr (tree type, tree init, + tsubst_flags_t complain ATTRIBUTE_UNUSED) { tree fn; tree slot;