On 14.02.2012, at 21:44, Richard Smith wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 11, 2012 at 3:51 PM, Sebastian Redl
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> Author: cornedbee
> Date: Sat Feb 11 17:51:47 2012
> New Revision: 150318
>
> URL: http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project?rev=150318&view=rev
> Log:
> Represent C++ direct initializers as ParenListExprs before semantic analysis
> instead of having a special-purpose function.
>
> - ActOnCXXDirectInitializer, which was mostly duplication of
> AddInitializerToDecl (leading e.g. to PR10620, which Eli fixed a few days
> ago), is dropped completely.
> - MultiInitializer, which was an ugly hack I added, is dropped again.
> - We now have the infrastructure in place to distinguish between
> int x = {1};
> int x({1});
> int x{1};
>
> g++4.6 has a bug where it silently accepts "t({...})" as if it were a
> brace-or-init-list initializer in a constructor's member initializer list. By
> the law of nature that for every g++ "extension" there is an equal and
> opposite libstdc++ bug, libstdc++ 4.6's <bitset> uses this syntax to
> initialize its member array in C++11 mode. Is it feasible to downgrade the
> error in this particular case to an ExtWarn?
Yes, it is, in a number of ways. I'll do it as soon as I get my current block
of work out of the way.
Sebastian
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
