http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=4131
Andrew Pinski pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mh+gcc at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=4131
Thiago Macieira thiago at kde dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||thiago at kde dot
--- Comment #24 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-06-28 11:05 ---
On:
extern C void abort ();
struct S
{
int x;
int y;
};
struct T
{
int x;
int y;
T (int u, int v) : x (u), y (v) {}
};
extern const S s;
extern const T t, u;
int sx = s.x;
int tx = t.x;
const S s = { 1,
--- Comment #25 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-06-28 11:22 ---
I guess best would be to wait for the constexpr work, then use that as an
infrastructure to discover ctors that aren't marked as constexpr, but they
could be and use that at bit together with !TREE_USED during
--- Comment #23 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-06-27 22:09
---
*** Bug 44638 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #22 from jyasskin at gmail dot com 2008-06-11 18:05 ---
This is related to generalized constant expressions
(http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2007/n2235.pdf) in C++0x.
Those will be marked by the explicit 'constexpr' keyword and will require the
--- Comment #20 from jorg dot brown at gmail dot com 2008-06-11 00:07
---
Interesting, but I'm not sure this can legally be done.
Consider:
struct POD {
int x;
int y;
};
struct nonPOD {
int x;
int y;
nonPOD(int xx, int yy) : x(xx), y(yy) { }
};
I, for one, would love to
--- Comment #21 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-06-11 02:17
---
Well if done correctly the compiler would see that nonpod.x was used for the
initialization and inline it as zero :). So really this can be still done.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=4131
--- Comment #19 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-05-02 14:55
---
*** Bug 31785 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #18 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-11-29 23:22
---
*** Bug 30023 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #17 from bjoern dot m dot haase at web dot de 2006-08-17 14:36
---
I have made a superficial analysis of the issue and would like to discuss at
the end of this post a possible approach for resolving PR4131.
The first observation is, that when one is having a code segment
--- Comment #16 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-08-11 08:04
---
Non trivial is the wording used by the C++ standard which is why I used it.
(it is also called user defined constructor).
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed
12 matches
Mail list logo
