On 07/06/2016 03:55 PM, Jeff Law wrote:
On 06/30/2016 04:38 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
On 06/20/2016 08:52 AM, Joseph Myers wrote:
On Sat, 18 Jun 2016, Martin Sebor wrote:
The attached patch slightly changes the order in which initializers
are checked for type compatibility to issue the same err
On 06/30/2016 04:38 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
On 06/20/2016 08:52 AM, Joseph Myers wrote:
On Sat, 18 Jun 2016, Martin Sebor wrote:
The attached patch slightly changes the order in which initializers
are checked for type compatibility to issue the same error for static
initializers of incompatibl
On 06/20/2016 08:52 AM, Joseph Myers wrote:
On Sat, 18 Jun 2016, Martin Sebor wrote:
The attached patch slightly changes the order in which initializers
are checked for type compatibility to issue the same error for static
initializers of incompatible types as for automatic objects, rather
than
On Sat, 18 Jun 2016, Martin Sebor wrote:
> The attached patch slightly changes the order in which initializers
> are checked for type compatibility to issue the same error for static
> initializers of incompatible types as for automatic objects, rather
> than rejecting the former for their lack of
The attached patch slightly changes the order in which initializers
are checked for type compatibility to issue the same error for static
initializers of incompatible types as for automatic objects, rather
than rejecting the former for their lack of constness first.
I originally closed the bug as
