Re: [pooma-dev] RFA: Reorder Initializers (2 of 3)

[Jeffrey Oldham]

On Wed, Mar 28, 2001 at 04:31:18PM -0800, Jeffrey Oldham wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 28, 2001 at 03:45:05PM -0800, James Crotinger wrote:
> > Why are these changes needed? I thought ordering didn't matter. Also, you
> > added some explicit calls to default constructors - again, why?
> 
> I added base class initializers when g++ warned that a copy
> constructor did not initialize its base class.  For example,
> 
>     /nfs/oz/home/oldham/pooma/r2/src/NewField/Updater/UpdaterList.h:70: 
> warning: base
>        class `class RefCounted' should be explicitly initialized in the copy 
>        constructor

I do not believe the C++ standard requires this.  Mark Mitchell
explained to me that g++ warns because g++ assumes copy constructors
that do not deal with a base class accidentally omit dealing with the
base class and the author should look into this.  Neither he nor I
know of a way to turn off these g++ warnings without turning off all
warnings.

> Please
> accept: if you want g++ users to not have to deal with warning messages
> reject: otherwise.

Thanks,
Jeffrey D. Oldham
address@hidden