On Thu, Dec 21, 2017 at 1:51 PM, Jason Merrill <ja...@redhat.com> wrote: > On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 4:30 PM, Jason Merrill <ja...@redhat.com> wrote: >> On Fri, Nov 17, 2017 at 11:04 PM, Nathan Froyd <nfr...@mozilla.com> wrote: >>> On Fri, Nov 17, 2017 at 8:50 AM, Jason Merrill <ja...@redhat.com> wrote: >>>> On Thu, Nov 16, 2017 at 11:21 AM, Nathan Froyd <froy...@mozilla.com> wrote: >>>>> diff --git a/gcc/cp/init.c b/gcc/cp/init.c >>>>> index c76460d..53d6133 100644 >>>>> --- a/gcc/cp/init.c >>>>> +++ b/gcc/cp/init.c >>>>> @@ -4038,6 +4038,15 @@ build_vec_init (tree base, tree maxindex, tree >>>>> init, >>>>> } >>>>> } >>>>> >>>>> + /* Default-initialize scalar arrays directly. */ >>>>> + if (TREE_CODE (atype) == ARRAY_TYPE >>>>> + && SCALAR_TYPE_P (TREE_TYPE (atype)) >>>>> + && !init) >>>> >>>> This should check explicit_value_init._p rather than !init. And also >>>> check zero_init_p. >>> >>> Do you mean explicit_value_init_p && zero_init_p (atype)? >> >> Yes. >> >>> zero_init_p >>> doesn't sound like the correct thing to use here, because it doesn't >>> take into account whether a class array type has a constructor. I am >>> probably misunderstanding the purpose of the zero_init_p check, >>> though. >> >> Since you're already checking for scalar type, we don't need to worry >> about classes. The zero_init_p check is to handle pointers to data >> members properly. > > Any update?
?
