Hi,
On 18/05/2016 16:08, Jason Merrill wrote:
On 05/17/2016 05:57 PM, Paolo Carlini wrote:
On 17/05/2016 20:15, Jason Merrill wrote:
On 05/17/2016 04:47 AM, Paolo Carlini wrote:
... alternately, if the substance of my patchlet is right, we could
simplify a bit the logic per the below.
Here's a well-formed variant that was accepted by 4.5. Does your
patch fix it? I also think with your patch we can drop the C++11
check, since list-initialization doesn't exist in C++98.
Oh nice, the new testcase indeed passes with my patch. However, removing
completely C++11 check causes a regression in c++98 mode for
init/explicit1.C, we start warning for it:
Ah, that makes sense. Your patch is OK, then.
Committed. Since you noticed that actually this is a regression, please
let me know in which branches we want to fix it, I would guess at least
gcc-6-branch too.
Thanks,
Paolo.
