On Wed, Apr 1, 2015 at 3:08 AM, Marek Polacek <pola...@redhat.com> wrote: > On Tue, Mar 31, 2015 at 03:11:24PM -0400, Jason Merrill wrote: >> On 03/31/2015 01:22 PM, Marek Polacek wrote: >> >The user *should* have been using <initializer_list>. But responding to >> >this >> >with an ICE isn't acceptable either. >> > >> >We do reject wholly incompatible user-defined initializer_list: >> >finish_struct >> >requires it be a template with a pointer field followed by an integer field, >> >and in this case it is, but convert_like_real assumes that the second >> >integer >> >field has a size_type, so it initializes the length with that type. But as >> >the >> >following testcase (which clang accepts) shows, it might be a different >> >integer >> >type, and gimplifier doesn't like any non-trivial conversion in an >> >assignment. >> >> I think I'd prefer to enforce that the second integer is size_t, not just an >> integer, so that the assumption in convert_like_real is correct. > > Ok, that isn't hard to do either. > > Bootstrapped/regtested on x86_64-linux, ok for trunk? > > 2015-04-01 Marek Polacek <pola...@redhat.com> > > PR c++/65554 > * class.c (finish_struct): Require that the second field of a > user-defined initializer_list be of size type. > > * g++.dg/cpp0x/initlist93.C: New test. > * g++.dg/cpp0x/initlist94.C: New test. >
This caused: FAIL: g++.dg/cpp0x/pr57101.C -std=gnu++11 (test for excess errors) FAIL: g++.dg/cpp0x/pr57101.C -std=gnu++14 (test for excess errors) on 32 bit system. -- H.J.
