------- Comment #4 from piotr dot wyderski at gmail dot com 2010-06-11 11:01 ------- (In reply to comment #2) > A question: apart from quoting chapter and verse from the standard (8.5 > [dcl.init], para 9 in C++03, para 6 in C++0x,) how could the diagnostic have > been any clearer? > > It indicates you can use -fpermissive to relax the warning, and it includes a > note telling you the type has no user-provided default constructor, which is > true. Why would you assume this is a bug, when a developer has gone to the > trouble of writing the note?
All the compilers I am aware of accept the aforementioned construction, so I blindly assumed that 4.6 is wrong in issuing a warning. The note's content was considered irrelevant, since no error was expected. But if the behaviour is OK, then it is OK no matter what a surprise it turns out to be. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44499
