From 90cbc769006a43ed17d2384b3a0a4634f315d3fd Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Jason Merrill Date: Fri, 22 Jan 2021 11:57:27 -0500 Subject: [PATCH] c++: Fix base copy elision thinko [PR98744] As Jakub points out in the PR, I was mixing up DECL_HAS_IN_CHARGE_PARM_P (which is true for the abstract maybe-in-charge constructor) and DECL_HAS_VTT_PARM_P (which is true for a base constructor that needs to handle virtual bases). gcc/cp/ChangeLog: PR c++/98744 * call.c (make_base_init_ok): Use DECL_HAS_VTT_PARM_P. gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog: PR c++/98744 * g++.dg/init/elide7.C: New test. --- gcc/cp/call.c | 2 +- gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/init/elide7.C | 9 +++++++++ 2 files changed, 10 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) create mode 100644 gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/init/elide7.C diff --git a/gcc/cp/call.c b/gcc/cp/call.c index b6e9f12..a2c5ef7 100644 --- a/gcc/cp/call.c +++ b/gcc/cp/call.c @@ -8470,7 +8470,7 @@ make_base_init_ok (tree exp) return true; gcc_assert (DECL_COMPLETE_CONSTRUCTOR_P (fn)); fn = base_ctor_for (fn); - if (!fn || DECL_HAS_IN_CHARGE_PARM_P (fn)) + if (!fn || DECL_HAS_VTT_PARM_P (fn)) /* The base constructor has more parameters, so we can't just change the call target. It would be possible to splice in the appropriate arguments, but probably not worth the complexity. */ diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/init/elide7.C b/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/init/elide7.C new file mode 100644 index 0000000..d4bacaf --- /dev/null +++ b/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/init/elide7.C @@ -0,0 +1,9 @@ +// PR c++/98744 +// { dg-additional-options "-O2 -fno-inline -Wmaybe-uninitialized" } + +struct A {}; +struct B : virtual A {}; +struct C : B { + C() : B(B()) {} +}; +int main() { C c; return 0; } -- 2.7.4