> > Eric Botcazou asked that we have the same code for both 4.7 and HEAD.
> > Would it be OK to apply it to both? It's not really strictly
> > necessary for the HEAD, but I don't see it as being harmful either.
>
> Sure.
Thank you! Now checked in.
--
Joel
On Tue, Jan 8, 2013 at 12:37 PM, Joel Brobecker wrote:
> Hi Richard,
>
>> >> Hmm? We compile with a C++ compiler where this is perfectly valid ...
>> >
>> > I was compiling with GCC 4.7 where it gave me a warning... I don't know
>> > much about C++ anymore, so I didn't know. Oh well!
>>
>> Ah, fo
Hi Richard,
> >> Hmm? We compile with a C++ compiler where this is perfectly valid ...
> >
> > I was compiling with GCC 4.7 where it gave me a warning... I don't know
> > much about C++ anymore, so I didn't know. Oh well!
>
> Ah, for the 4.7 branch yes.
Eric Botcazou asked that we have the same
On Thu, Jan 3, 2013 at 1:37 PM, Joel Brobecker wrote:
>> > Tested against x86_64-linux, no regression.
>> > OK to commit? (obvious?)
>>
>> Hmm? We compile with a C++ compiler where this is perfectly valid ...
>
> I was compiling with GCC 4.7 where it gave me a warning... I don't know
> much about
> Hmm? We compile with a C++ compiler where this is perfectly valid ...
Not on earlier branches though, e.g. the 4.7 branch. So I would install it
everywhere to avoid gratuitous differences.
--
Eric Botcazou
> > Tested against x86_64-linux, no regression.
> > OK to commit? (obvious?)
>
> Hmm? We compile with a C++ compiler where this is perfectly valid ...
I was compiling with GCC 4.7 where it gave me a warning... I don't know
much about C++ anymore, so I didn't know. Oh well!
--
Joel
On Thu, Jan 3, 2013 at 1:30 PM, Joel Brobecker wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I happened to notice a warning while compiling GCC, and it seemed
> like an easy fix...
>
> gcc/cp/ChangeLog:
>
> * parser.c (cp_parser_initializer_list): Move declaration
> of variable non_const to start of lexical
