On sábado, 7 de julho de 2012 09.36.55, Olivier Goffart wrote: > On Saturday 07 July 2012 07:33:56 Thiago Macieira wrote: > > On sábado, 7 de julho de 2012 02.12.42, Olivier Goffart wrote: > > > 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. > > > > We also need to know which version fixes the bug so we can apply a correct > > version fix. And the Apple clang version and how to figure out when it is > > Apple clang. > > > > For now, I'd say we blacklist constexpr in Clang. > > This has nothing to do with constexpr > It is the aggregate initialisation that has a small bug.
I understand that. But the constructors only exist because we have constexpr.
If we didn't have it, we wouldn't have added the constructors which would have
left them as PODs.
--
Thiago Macieira - thiago.macieira (AT) intel.com
Software Architect - Intel Open Source Technology Center
Intel Sweden AB - Registration Number: 556189-6027
Knarrarnäsgatan 15, 164 40 Kista, Stockholm, Sweden
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
_______________________________________________ Development mailing list [email protected] http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development
