I don't understand why you can't compile a class which has both a member (not default constructible) with a brace-or-equal initializer and an inherited constructor. g++ says :
test.cpp:22:15: error: use of deleted function ‘Derived::Derived(float)’
Derived d(1.2f);test.cpp:16:13: note: ‘Derived::Derived(float)’ is implicitly deleted
because the default definition would be ill-formed:
using Base::Base;test.cpp:16:13: error: no matching function for call to ‘NoDefCTor::NoDefCTor()’
test.cpp:5:1: note: candidate:
NoDefCTor::NoDefCTor(int) NoDefCTor(int) {}
Code that fails to compile (under g++ 5.1):
struct NoDefCTor
{
NoDefCTor(int) {}
};
struct Base
{
Base(float) {}
};
struct Derived : Base
{
using Base::Base;
NoDefCTor n2{ 4 };
};
int main()
{
Derived d(1.2f);
}
Code that compiles, but never uses NoDefCTor
's default constructor (despite apparently needing it!):
struct NoDefCTor
{
NoDefCTor(int) {}
NoDefCTor() = default;
};
struct Base
{
Base(float) {}
};
struct Derived : Base
{
using Base::Base;
NoDefCTor n2{ 4 };
};
int main()
{
Derived d(1.2f);
}
I don't really like the idea of having a default constructor when I don't need one. On a side note both versions compile (and behave) just fine on MSVC14.
This is a gcc bug, #67054. Comparing the bug report by alltaken380 to the OP's case:
We can even try this on recent gcc 6.0 versions, and it still fails to compile. clang++3.6 and, according to the OP, MSVC14 accept this program.