2014-02-28 22:27 GMT+01:00 Jason Merrill <ja...@redhat.com>: > Let's change the C++11 diagnostic to match the C++98 diagnostic. So, > "uninitialized const member in %q#T" + "%qD should be initialized".
OK. >> Incidentally, while moving the diagnostic concerning the uninitialized >> field from an error to an inform, I realized that the syntactic sugar >> %q#D is no longer honored an is treated as %qD, is it expected ? > > > No, how do you mean? I must be tired, false alarm, sorry. -- Fabien
