On 09/25/2011 02:39 PM, Fabien Chêne wrote:
Great, I would be glad to see it applied to 4.6. If you do that, you
may also want to adjust the last paragraph in the release note of 4.6.
Done, thanks for the suggestion.
Jason
2011/9/25 Paolo Carlini :
> On 09/25/2011 08:39 PM, Fabien Chêne wrote:
>>
>> And as a really minor detail, some empty constructor I added in
>> libstdc++-v3/src/future.cc, libstdc++-v3/src/system_error.cc, and
>> libstdc++-v3/testsuite/util/testsuite_error.h (r158797) might no longer be
>> necessa
On 09/25/2011 08:39 PM, Fabien Chêne wrote:
And as a really minor detail, some empty constructor I added in
libstdc++-v3/src/future.cc, libstdc++-v3/src/system_error.cc, and
libstdc++-v3/testsuite/util/testsuite_error.h (r158797) might no
longer be necessary.
I can take care of this, thanks f
2011/9/24 Jason Merrill :
[...]
> Tested x86_64-pc-linux-gnu, applied to trunk. I'm also considering applying
> it to 4.6 since we got more strict about the pre-253 rule in 4.6.
Great, I would be glad to see it applied to 4.6. If you do that, you
may also want to adjust the last paragraph in the
Issue 253 was raised in 2000, but was considered low priority at the
time; it pointed out that classes with no actual data don't really need
an initializer, so we shouldn't require one. This becomes more
important now that we have non-static data member initializers that can
initialize all the
