https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111351
--- Comment #1 from Arthur O'Dwyer <arthur.j.odwyer at gmail dot com> ---
(Author of the blog post here.)
In contrast to James' view, I think the libstdc++/MSVC behavior is relatively
easy to explain; I think libc++'s `if consteval` approach is baroque and
confusing. [That is, _both_ behaviors are confusing to the newbie and need
expert explanation, but libc++'s choice is confusing even for the experts, who
have to maintain its split-brain SSO logic forever because Hyrum's Law. If you
have to maintain something forever, you should at least choose to make it
_simple_! As I say in the blog post, in hindsight I think libc++ screwed up
here.]
IMHO it is a feature, not a bug, that I can write these lines:
constinit std::string s1;
constinit std::vector<char> v1;
libstdc++ would be within its rights, paper-Standard-wise, to reject both of
these lines; but I don't think libstdc++ _should_ reject either of them.
They're both fine code as far as I'm concerned. I think libc++ is the
user-hostile/broken implementation here, not libstdc++.
Anyone who thinks libstdc++ ought to reject `s1` above should at least be
forced to explain what libstdc++ ought to do about `v1`. From the
user-programmer's POV, there's no difference between a default-initialized
string and a default-initialized vector. Users don't care about these SSO
details; they just want the code to work. That's what libstdc++ currently does.
Good, IMO.
