On Tue, Feb 14, 2012 at 3:32 PM, Sebastian Redl < [email protected]> wrote: > > On 14.02.2012, at 21:44, Richard Smith wrote: > > On Sat, Feb 11, 2012 at 3:51 PM, Sebastian Redl < > [email protected]> wrote: > >> Author: cornedbee >> Date: Sat Feb 11 17:51:47 2012 >> New Revision: 150318 >> >> URL: http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project?rev=150318&view=rev >> Log: >> Represent C++ direct initializers as ParenListExprs before semantic >> analysis >> instead of having a special-purpose function. >> >> - ActOnCXXDirectInitializer, which was mostly duplication of >> AddInitializerToDecl (leading e.g. to PR10620, which Eli fixed a few days >> ago), is dropped completely. >> - MultiInitializer, which was an ugly hack I added, is dropped again. >> - We now have the infrastructure in place to distinguish between >> int x = {1}; >> int x({1}); >> int x{1}; >> > > g++4.6 has a bug where it silently accepts "t({...})" as if it were a > brace-or-init-list initializer in a constructor's member initializer list. > By the law of nature that for every g++ "extension" there is an equal and > opposite libstdc++ bug, libstdc++ 4.6's <bitset> uses this syntax to > initialize its member array in C++11 mode. Is it feasible to downgrade the > error in this particular case to an ExtWarn? > > Yes, it is, in a number of ways. I'll do it as soon as I get my current > block of work out of the way. >
I've addressed this in r150625.
_______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
