On 06/30/2016 04:38 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
On 06/20/2016 08:52 AM, Joseph Myers wrote:
On Sat, 18 Jun 2016, Martin Sebor wrote:
The attached patch slightly changes the order in which initializers
are checked for type compatibility to issue the same error for static
initializers of incompatible types as for automatic objects, rather
than rejecting the former for their lack of constness first.
OK, presuming the patch has passed the usual testing.
Thanks. I committed it in r237829. The reporter wants to know
if the patch can also be backported to 5 and or 6. Should I go
ahead?
My inclination would be no -- it's not a regression or incorrect code
generation.
jeff
