On Friday 06 July 2012 17:26:13 Stephen Chu wrote: > On 7/6/12 3:23 PM, Thiago Macieira wrote: > > On sexta-feira, 6 de julho de 2012 14.53.56, Stephen Chu wrote: > >> I tried Clang 3.1 and it compiles with or without the equal sign. > > > > Then I don't understand. If it supports brace-initialisation for non-PODs, > > why is it complaining about QBasicAtomicInt? > > I took the preprocessor output of one of the moc_*.cpp files and find > that it comes down to something like this: [...] > It seems the added constructor is confusing Clang. The same code > compiles fine with GCC 4.7.
Yes, This is the bug http://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=12670 I spend my evening doing a patch before I saw that bug report and noticed there was already one patch attached. But I think my patch is better :-) Anyway, if we want to support that version of clang, this still need to be worked around, so I suggest that the problematic code should be #ifdef'd out for the 'broken' versions of clang. -- Olivier Woboq - Qt services and support - http://woboq.com _______________________________________________ Development mailing list [email protected] http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development
