OK.
Jason
Hi again,
On 10/18/2012 06:02 PM, Jason Merrill wrote:
On 10/18/2012 01:15 AM, Paolo Carlini wrote:
If I understand correctly your hesitations, I don't think there are
exceptions to the general rule that if the size of the array is zero
there can be no initializers.
I'm thinking of a testcase
On 10/18/2012 06:02 PM, Jason Merrill wrote:
On 10/18/2012 01:15 AM, Paolo Carlini wrote:
If I understand correctly your hesitations, I don't think there are
exceptions to the general rule that if the size of the array is zero
there can be no initializers.
I'm thinking of a testcase like this,
On 10/18/2012 01:15 AM, Paolo Carlini wrote:
If I understand correctly your hesitations, I don't think there are
exceptions to the general rule that if the size of the array is zero
there can be no initializers.
I'm thinking of a testcase like this, which is currently accepted:
struct A
{
in
Hi,
On 10/18/2012 03:17 AM, Jason Merrill wrote:
Hmm, I thought I fixed a very similar bug recently.
I'm concerned that this change will cause problems with brace-elision
situations. But then again, can we have a zero-length array followed
by anything else?
If I understand correctly your hes
Hmm, I thought I fixed a very similar bug recently.
I'm concerned that this change will cause problems with brace-elision
situations. But then again, can we have a zero-length array followed by
anything else?
Jason
... oh well, I just realized that zero-size VECTORs don't make much
sense and are early rejected, thus I can improve my earlier patch.
Now I'm happier: essentially I'm only *moving* code around ;)
Thanks,
Paolo.
//
/cp
2012-10-17 Paolo Carlini
PR c++/54501
