On Thu, May 25, 2017 at 5:08 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Thu, May 25, 2017 at 10:51:56AM +0200, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>> On Tue, May 09, 2017 at 04:37:16PM -0400, Jason Merrill wrote:
>> > For C++17 aggregate bases, we have started adding base fields for
>> > empty bases. The code for calculatin
On Thu, May 25, 2017 at 10:51:56AM +0200, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Tue, May 09, 2017 at 04:37:16PM -0400, Jason Merrill wrote:
> > For C++17 aggregate bases, we have started adding base fields for
> > empty bases. The code for calculating whether a class is standard
> > layout needs to ignore the
On Tue, May 09, 2017 at 04:37:16PM -0400, Jason Merrill wrote:
> For C++17 aggregate bases, we have started adding base fields for
> empty bases. The code for calculating whether a class is standard
> layout needs to ignore these.
>
> The C++17 mode diagnostic for direct-enum-init1.C was incorrec
For C++17 aggregate bases, we have started adding base fields for
empty bases. The code for calculating whether a class is standard
layout needs to ignore these.
The C++17 mode diagnostic for direct-enum-init1.C was incorrect.
Tested x86_64-pc-linux-gnu, applying to trunk.
commit 9a612cc30d4b3ef
