Iain Sandoe <i...@sandoe.co.uk> wrote:
Iain Sandoe <i...@sandoe.co.uk> wrote:
Jason Merrill <ja...@redhat.com> wrote:
I notice this patch includes
+ var_nest_node () = default;
which will break GCC 10 bootstrap with a C++98 compiler; we only
switched to C++11 for GCC 11.
Hmm, the patch was already backported…
… I will fix this.
I missed the warning during testing.
We set -std=gnu++98 for the stage1 compiler, which does warn about this
(although there
is a lot of warning output from a bootstrap, it’s easy to miss one).
I’m mostly bootstrapping with GCC-7.5 and it appears that this does not
actually produce
any error even if one actually uses the defaulted ctor (at least in a
trivial test).
= anyway ….
OK for gcc-10?
Nathan acked this on IRC, so I pushed now.
thanks
Iain
this removes the warning from the stage #1.
thanks
Iain
==========
[PATCH] coroutines : Avoid a C++11ism.
The master version of the code uses a defaulted CTOR, which had
been inadvertently backported to gcc-10. Fixed thus.
gcc/cp/ChangeLog:
* coroutines.cc (struct var_nest_node): Provide a default
CTOR.
---
gcc/cp/coroutines.cc | 4 +++-
1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/gcc/cp/coroutines.cc b/gcc/cp/coroutines.cc
index 9133f024434..4902d1a4c4f 100644
--- a/gcc/cp/coroutines.cc
+++ b/gcc/cp/coroutines.cc
@@ -2697,7 +2697,9 @@ find_interesting_subtree (tree *expr_p, int *dosub,
void *d)
struct var_nest_node
{
- var_nest_node () = default;
+ var_nest_node ()
+ : var(NULL_TREE), init(NULL_TREE),
+ prev(NULL), next(NULL), then_cl(NULL), else_cl(NULL) {}
var_nest_node (tree v, tree i, var_nest_node *p, var_nest_node *n)
: var(v), init(i), prev(p), next(n)
{
--
2.24.1
