Brad Roberts wrote:
Error, not warning. I was curious enough to do some digging. Here's the relevant snippet.. quite possibly not a direct quote, but repeated several times across several different websites. ============ The reason is that such jump is a scoping violation. C++ standard paragraph 6.7.3: It is possible to transfer into a block, but not in a way that bypasses declarations with initialization. A program that jumps (77) from a point where a local variable with automatic storage duration is not in scope to a point where it is in scope is ill-formed unless the variable has POD type (3.9) and is declared without an initializer (8.5). 77) The transfer from the condition of a switch statement to a case label is considered a jump in this respect. ============ So, based on that, it's neither spurious nor a bug in gcc. That dmd accepts it seems to be a bug. :)
Except that there is no possible way any jump or case statement can bypass the initialization of peekt and refer to it.
_______________________________________________ dmd-internals mailing list [email protected] http://lists.puremagic.com/mailman/listinfo/dmd-internals
