Avoided IBM/XL warning about omitted keyword "private" for base class "int_struct". Added note about IBM/XL V10.1 regression failure.

[SVN r61332]
This commit is contained in:
Niels Dekker
2010-04-17 08:38:01 +00:00
parent 70f95b9245
commit 18af1c798d

View File

@ -355,7 +355,7 @@ namespace boost_no_complete_value_initialization
// Note: its base class, int_struct, is there to try to reproduce GCC Bug 30111,
// "Value-initialization of POD base class doesn't initialize members", reported
// by Jonathan Wakely in 2006: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30111
class value_initializer: int_struct
class value_initializer: private int_struct
{
private:
enum_holder m_enum_holder;
@ -596,6 +596,11 @@ namespace boost_no_complete_value_initialization
FAILED_TO_VALUE_INITIALIZE(derived_int_struct()) +
FAILED_TO_VALUE_INITIALIZE(char_array_struct()) +
FAILED_TO_VALUE_INITIALIZE(int_array_pair()) +
// IBM's XL V10.1.0.0 may fail to value-initialize a temporary of a non-POD
// type like enum_holder_and_int, virtual_destructor_holder, or non_pod_class,
// as appeared at the Boost Config/trunk regression page in April 2010.
// Michael Wong (IBM Canada Ltd) confirmed the issue to me (Niels Dekker, LKEB),
// and gave it high priority.
FAILED_TO_VALUE_INITIALIZE(enum_holder_and_int()) +
FAILED_TO_VALUE_INITIALIZE(private_and_protected_int()) +
// The following line, doing user_defined_destructor_holder(), causes
@ -681,7 +686,7 @@ namespace boost_no_complete_value_initialization
<< num_failures_on_heap << '+'
<< num_failures_of_temporaries << "): "
<< total_num_failures
<< "\nDetected by boost_no_complete_value_initialization::test() revision 15."
<< "\nDetected by boost_no_complete_value_initialization::test() revision 16."
<< std::endl;
}
return static_cast<int>(total_num_failures);