https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110195
--- Comment #8 from Jonathan Wakely ---
In the context of the C++ standard a "defect report" has a very specific
meaning, and it doesn't apply here.
The proposal
https://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2018/p1008r1.pdf changed
this
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110195
--- Comment #7 from jack ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #6)
> The standard.
> In C++17 Single is an aggregate, and Single{} is aggregate-initialization,
> which initializes each member in turn, without calling a constructor. Sinc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110195
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |INVALID
Status|UNCONFIRME
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110195
--- Comment #5 from jack ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #4)
> Note clang accepts Single{} where Single is an empty class also before C++20
> ...
I think Clang accepting empty class case does not neccessarily mean it is
correct.
Bec
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110195
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski ---
Note clang accepts Single{} where Single is an empty class also before C++20
...
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110195
jack changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|INVALID |---
Status|RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110195
--- Comment #2 from jack ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #1)
> Before C++20, Single{} didn't call the constructor so this behavior is
> expected.
Could you explain why it didn't call the constructor before c++20? C++ standard
rules
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110195
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
