OK, thanks.
Jason
Hi,
On 06/08/2015 06:16 PM, Jason Merrill wrote:
On 05/22/2015 02:46 PM, Paolo Carlini wrote:
take a type, not a decl, as first argument.
Why? This complicates calls.
Yes, but, on the other hand, it's more consistent with the arguments of
the various digest_init_*. Also, we don't
Hi again,
On 06/08/2015 10:33 PM, Paolo Carlini wrote:
Could you also check that we do the right thing for mem-initializers?
Sure I will.
I think we have a similar issue in expand_default_init: exactly when
reshape_init is in order we fail to call it before digest_init. The
below also passes
.. in case isn't obvious: this case is already Ok:
struct array {
int data [2];
};
struct X {
X() : a{ 1, 2 } { }
array a;
};
because perform_member_init calls reshape_init.
Paolo.
Hi,
gently pinging this...
On 05/22/2015 08:46 PM, Paolo Carlini wrote:
Hi,
surprisingly, for NSDMIs we don't use reshape_init and we end-up
rejecting simple testcases like the below. It seems clear to me that
we should - consistently with the comment preceding digest_init too -
but I'm
On 05/22/2015 02:46 PM, Paolo Carlini wrote:
take a type, not a decl, as first argument.
Why? This complicates calls.
Could you also check that we do the right thing for mem-initializers?
Jason
Hi,
surprisingly, for NSDMIs we don't use reshape_init and we end-up
rejecting simple testcases like the below. It seems clear to me that we
should - consistently with the comment preceding digest_init too - but
I'm not 100% sure that digest_nsdmi_init is the best place for that.
Anyway, the
