It'd be useful to figure out where we differ from the GCC documentation with this patch applied:
https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Zero-Length.html ================ Comment at: test/SemaCXX/zero-length-arrays.cpp:13 @@ -13,5 +12,3 @@ int foo_count; - Foo foos[0]; - Foo foos2[0][2]; - Foo foos3[2][0]; + Foo foos[0]; // expected-error-re {{flexible array member {{.*}} with non-trivial destruction}} ---------------- majnemer wrote: > rsmith wrote: > > Can we find out what rdar://problem/10228639 was? > > interaction between having a trailing zero-sized array in a struct (C++ > > extension) and whether that implies having a default constructor. > > the usual sort of thing. language extension interaction w/ actual language > > standard. things get odd. Sounds like there was no expectation that we actually accept this then? http://reviews.llvm.org/D5478 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
