commit 900881b6124897c0384ee970fde989785ddaf49e
Author: Jason Merrill <jason@redhat.com>
Date: Tue Jun 28 17:25:40 2011 -0400
* init.c (build_value_init): Decide whether or not to zero-initialize
based on user-providedness of default ctor, not any ctor.
(build_value_init_noctor): Adjust assert.
@@ -334,14 +334,20 @@ build_value_init (tree type, tsubst_flags_t complain)
if (CLASS_TYPE_P (type))
{
- if (type_has_user_provided_constructor (type))
+ /* Instead of the above, only consider the user-providedness of the
+ default constructor itself so value-initializing a class with an
+ explicitly defaulted default constructor and another user-provided
+ constructor works properly (c++std-core-19883). */
+ if (type_has_user_provided_default_constructor (type)
+ || (!TYPE_HAS_DEFAULT_CONSTRUCTOR (type)
+ && type_has_user_provided_constructor (type)))
return build_aggr_init_expr
(type,
build_special_member_call (NULL_TREE, complete_ctor_identifier,
NULL, type, LOOKUP_NORMAL,
complain),
complain);
- else if (type_build_ctor_call (type))
+ else if (TYPE_HAS_COMPLEX_DFLT (type))
{
/* This is a class that needs constructing, but doesn't have
a user-provided constructor. So we need to zero-initialize
@@ -371,7 +377,7 @@ build_value_init_noctor (tree type, tsubst_flags_t complain)
SFINAE-enabled. */
if (CLASS_TYPE_P (type))
{
- gcc_assert (!type_build_ctor_call (type));
+ gcc_assert (!TYPE_HAS_COMPLEX_DFLT (type));
if (TREE_CODE (type) != UNION_TYPE)
{
new file mode 100644
@@ -0,0 +1,20 @@
+// Test that we properly value-initialize a class with a user-provided
+// constructor but defaulted default constructor. The FDIS got this
+// wrong; see c++std-core-19883.
+
+// { dg-options -std=c++0x }
+// { dg-do run }
+
+struct A
+{
+ int i;
+ A() = default;
+ A(int);
+};
+
+int main()
+{
+ A a{};
+ if (a.i != 0)
+ return 1;
+}