--- Comment #6 from gcc-bugzilla at kayari dot org 2005-11-12 14:12 ---
Created an attachment (id=10227)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=10227&action=view)
alternative fix
This is a fixed version of the previous patch that passes tests on
linux-x86_64.
Thi
--- Comment #9 from gcc-bugzilla at kayari dot org 2005-12-06 13:07 ---
I've often found this warning to be a nuisance, because it's correct and
well-defined to omit some braces from the initializer.
There are many cases where the warning is useful, e.g. with aggregates
--- Comment #19 from gcc-bugzilla at kayari dot org 2005-12-10 13:17
---
would the summary be clarified by changing "Non-existing ambiguity when
inhering through virtuals two identical using declarations" to "Ambiguity due
to two using declarations for same member
--- Comment #13 from gcc-bugzilla at kayari dot org 2006-10-15 03:24
---
If this ever gets fixed (which I hope it does) then maybe it should depend on
-std=c++98 so this continues to work by default, or it will break a lot of code
that incorrectly passes extern "C++" functi
initialize members
Product: gcc
Version: 4.1.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: gcc-bugzilla at kayari d
--- Comment #1 from gcc-bugzilla at kayari dot org 2006-12-07 18:03 ---
Values printed out confirm it on Linux for 3.3.5 20050117 (prerelease) (SUSE
Linux), and official FSF 3.4.3, 4.0.1, 4.0.2, 4.1.1
N.B. I meant AIX 5.3, not 5/3
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id
--- Comment #4 from gcc-bugzilla at kayari dot org 2006-12-08 10:36 ---
Richard, there's no difference between pod() and p() in this case, both are
value-initialisations of a POD class, therefore all non-static data members
should be value-initialised. I cited 8.5p5 for good r
