https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65312
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65312
--- Comment #5 from radventure at yandex dot ru ---
(In reply to Marek Polacek from comment #4)
> Looks like this PR could be resolved as a NOTABUG?
Agree
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65312
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65312
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely ---
The {} means value-initialization as opposed to default-initialization.
I think value-init requires the compiler to zero out all the members first,
even though they will be given another value anyway.
I h
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65312
--- Comment #2 from radventure at yandex dot ru ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #1)
> I believe this is a GCC extension, G++ implements the proposed resolution of
> http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/cwg_active.html#253 and
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65312
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely ---
I believe this is a GCC extension, G++ implements the proposed resolution of
http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/cwg_active.html#253 and since all
sub-objects of List are correctly initialized, no i
