2012/12/3 Francisco Lopes
> I've created this stackoverflow question regarding all of this:
>
> http://stackoverflow.com/questions/13693871/is-this-a-defect-in-the-c11-standard
>
So, in the end, now it must be a bug in the compiler =D
__
I've created this stackoverflow question regarding all of this:
http://stackoverflow.com/questions/13693871/is-this-a-defect-in-the-c11-standard
___
Development mailing list
Development@qt-project.org
http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/developme
2012/12/3 Francisco Lopes
> 2012/12/3 Thiago Macieira
>
>> Looks like a defect in the standard then. It requires initialisation with
>> =.
>>
>
> Yes, indeed it looks like.
>
#define ATOMIC_VAR_INIT(value) see below
The macro expands to a token sequence sui
2012/12/3 Thiago Macieira
> Looks like a defect in the standard then. It requires initialisation with
> =.
>
Yes, indeed it looks like.
___
Development mailing list
Development@qt-project.org
http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development
2012/12/3 Francisco Lopes
> I got your point, the question it seems is that the macro must be valid
> for the assignment initialization in the first place.
Well, in any way, according to what has been pointed from the standard, any
assignment initialization would require a copy constr
I got your point, the question it seems is that the macro must be valid for
the assignment initialization in the first place.
___
Development mailing list
Development@qt-project.org
http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development
8.5.4 List-initialization [dcl.init.list]
1 List-initialization is initialization of an object or reference from a
braced-init-list. Such an initializer is called an initializer list, and
the comma-separated initializer-clauses of the list are called the elements of
the initializer list. An initia
2012/12/3 Thiago Macieira
> On segunda-feira, 3 de dezembro de 2012 15.37.13, Francisco Lopes wrote:
> > Please take a look at my last comment on the bug report (
> > http://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=14486#c10). If my analysis is
> right,
> > it's wrong to use
Please take a look at my last comment on the bug report (
http://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=14486#c10). If my analysis is right,
it's wrong to use "= {0}" with an inaccessible copy constructor.
___
Development mailing list
Development@qt-project.org
ht
2012/12/3 Stephen Kelly
> On Monday, December 03, 2012 12:02:14 Francisco Lopes da Silva wrote:
> > > Wow, I missed that in my sample, now I see. Indeed it looks like a
> > > compiler bug indeed. I'll report to LLVM Bug List.
> >
> > Reported to http://llvm.
>
> Wow, I missed that in my sample, now I see. Indeed it looks like a
> compiler bug indeed. I'll report to LLVM Bug List.
>
Reported to http://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=14486.
___
Development mailing list
Development@qt-project.org
http://lists.qt-
2012/12/3 Olivier Goffart
> On Sunday 02 December 2012 23:02:15 Thiago Macieira wrote:
> > On segunda-feira, 3 de dezembro de 2012 07.53.07, Olivier Goffart wrote:
> > > I was able to reproduce the error by making QMetaTypeIdQObject a
> template.
> > > (On linux with both clang 3.1 and clang trun
I'm trying to build Qt5 on my environment but I'm stumbling at an error I'm
having a hardtime dealing with.
I use OS X Mountain Lion, but I don't use the default Xcode environment, I
compile both clang and libc++
from sources.
clang --version
clang version 3.3 (trunk 168290)
Target: x86_64-apple-
13 matches
Mail list logo