https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39934
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||colu...@gmx-topmail.de
--- Comment #14
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39934
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39934
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|gcc-bugs at gcc dot gnu.org|jason at gcc dot
gnu.org,
--- Comment #11 from dherring at tentpost dot com 2010-09-16 18:54 ---
FWIW, the example given in the C++ draft spec, section 9.5, fails to compile in
g++, even under version 4.5 with the -std=c++0x flag. (This example has been
there for a few years.)
Coupled with requirements such as
--- Comment #10 from redi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-11-04 15:28 ---
To be clear: In C++0x struct A would have a deleted copy assign operator, and
union U would be allowed, but its copy assignment operator would be deleted.
IMHO C++03 is not clear whether struct A has a trivial assign
--- Comment #9 from redi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-11-04 14:41 ---
http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/cwg_defects.html#653
and
http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/cwg_defects.html#683
and
http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2008/n2762
I'm still not sure
--- Comment #8 from redi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-11-03 18:10 ---
(In reply to comment #6)
>
> The ARM comment (as quoted) is clearly wrong: offhand, I can think of
> two other ways of getting an object initialized. There are probably
> more.
>
> 1. Casting the offending "const" aw
--- Comment #6 from terra at gnome dot org 2009-11-03 17:44 ---
cp/class.c has code like this:
/* If any field is const, the structure type is pseudo-const. * /
if (CP_TYPE_CONST_P (type))
{
...
/* ARM $12.6.2: [A member initializer list] (or, for an
aggregate, initiali
--- Comment #7 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2009-11-03 17:49
---
Saying that ARM is "wrong" seems frankly rather silly to me: either the
quotation is incorrect, I don't think so, or ARM has been obsoleted by the ISO
Standard, perfectly possible.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bu
--- Comment #5 from redi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-11-03 14:21 ---
(In reply to comment #4)
> > I'm not sure whether using A in a union causes the implicitly-declared copy
> > assignment operator to be implicitly defined, but that seems to be what's
> > happening.
>
> No, that's not q
--- Comment #4 from terra at gnome dot org 2009-11-03 13:47 ---
> I'm not sure whether using A in a union causes the implicitly-declared copy
> assignment operator to be implicitly defined, but that seems to be what's
> happening.
No, that's not quite it.
The requirement for union memb
--- Comment #3 from redi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-11-03 13:32 ---
(In reply to comment #2)
>
> Is there a sane workaround for this?
Don't use 'const' members of unions.
Union members cannot have a non-trivial copy assignment operator.
The assignment operator for A cannot be implici
--- Comment #2 from redhatter at gentoo dot org 2009-11-03 05:45 ---
Also confirmed on GCC 3.4.5 as distributed with Qt SDK:
ezec...@toshiba /tmp
$ /c/Qt/2009.03/mingw/bin/gcc --version
gcc.exe (GCC) 3.4.5 (mingw-vista special r3)
Copyright (C) 2004 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
This i
--- Comment #1 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2009-04-27 20:49
---
For the record, Comeau and Intel are not happy, though.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39934
14 matches
Mail list logo
