2014-02-27 19:25 GMT+01:00 Jason Merrill <[email protected]>:
> On 02/23/2014 02:36 PM, Fabien Chêne wrote:
>>
>> * cp/method.c (walk_field_subobs): improve the diagnostic
>> locations for both REFERENCE_TYPEs and non-static const members.
>
>
> It's important to have the error location be the place where the actual
> problem is, namely the constructor definition. Instead of changing it,
> please add an inform pointing out the location of the member in question.
Well, I am not very happy with the c++11 diagnostic compared to the c++98 one.
Below is the original c++11 diagnostic for pr44086.C:
struct A
{
int const i : 2;
};
void f()
{
A a; // { dg-error "deleted|uninitialized const" }
new A; // { dg-error "deleted|uninitialized const" }
A(); // { dg-error "deleted" "" { target c++11 } }
new A(); // { dg-error "deleted" "" { target c++11 } }
}
testsuite/g++.dg/init/uninitialized1.C:10:3: error: use of deleted
function 'A::A()'
testsuite/g++.dg/init/uninitialized1.C:3:8: note: 'A::A()' is
implicitly deleted because the default definition would be ill-formed:
testsuite/g++.dg/init/uninitialized1.C:3:8: error: uninitialized
non-static const member 'const int A::value1'
The first two lines are fine in my opinion. The third line should
actually be split into an error + an inform. By doing that, I think we
also need to reformulate the error message like this:
testsuite/g++.dg/init/pr44086.C:4:8: error: 'struct A' needs its
non-static const members to be initialized
testsuite/g++.dg/init/pr44086.C:6:19: note: 'A::i' should be initialized
What do you think ? (before I bother adjusting the testsuite)
Incidentally, while moving the diagnostic concerning the uninitialized
field from an error to an inform, I realized that the syntactic sugar
%q#D is no longer honored an is treated as %qD, is it expected ?
--
Fabien
