Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!usc!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!mcvax!hp4nl!kunivv1!atcmpe!leo
From: leo@atcmp.nl (Leo  Willems)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c++
Subject: Re: Virtual table problem
Keywords: virtual table
Message-ID: <532@atcmpe.atcmp.nl>
Date: 29 Jun 89 13:13:24 GMT
References: <11702@ulysses.homer.nj.att.com>
Organization: AT Computing, Nijmegen, The Netherlands
Lines: 34

From article <11702@ulysses.homer.nj.att.com>, by jss@hector.UUCP (Jerry Schwarz):
> In article <527@atcmpe.atcmp.nl> leo@atcmp.nl (Leo  Willems) writes:
>>
>>
>>Since then, i found that my problem which (still) exists for our C++ compiler 
>>(a version of cfront) does compile correct under G++.
>>So here it is again, if it's a stupid question, please e-flame anyway so 
>>i now this message got out.
> 
> I can't figure out what the question is.  The item contains
> a compiler bug report.  Is the question whether or not it is a bug?
> 

No, the question is that I wonder if the presented code is correct C++ in
the given example.
If it is, the compiler generates incorrect code (see the ternary operator)
However, if the presented code is not correct I would like to know why.

I hope this clarifies my previous posting.

> 
> This is what we mean when we say that cfront is a compiler that uses
> C as an intermediate language rather than a preprocessor.
> 

Am I correct that in either case (bad C code generation, or bad C++ code
without a warning) I should contact the compiler supplier?


Leo Willems			Internet: leo@atcmp.nl
AT Computing			UUCP:     mcvax!hp4nl!kunivv1!atcmpe!leo
P. O. Box 1428				
6501 BK  Nijmegen
The Netherlands