This is the mail archive of the
gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: c++/7181: foo<n>::bar = foo<n-1>::bar + foo<n-2>::bar evaluatesto zero at compile time
- From: Mark Mitchell <mark at codesourcery dot com>
- To: Paolo Carlini <pcarlini at unitus dot it>, "gcc-gnats at gcc dot gnu dot org" <gcc-gnats at gcc dot gnu dot org>, "gcc-prs at gcc dot gnu dot org" <gcc-prs at gcc dot gnu dot org>, "dobrynin at bigfoot dot com" <dobrynin at bigfoot dot com>, "gcc-bugs at gcc dot gnu dot org" <gcc-bugs at gcc dot gnu dot org>, Nathan Sidwell <nathan at codesourcery dot com>
- Date: Tue, 02 Jul 2002 13:33:06 -0700
- Subject: Re: c++/7181: foo<n>::bar = foo<n-1>::bar + foo<n-2>::bar evaluatesto zero at compile time
--On Tuesday, July 02, 2002 10:28:13 PM +0200 Paolo Carlini
<pcarlini@unitus.it> wrote:
Hi,
from a very practical point of view, would be difficult to restore the
behaviour of 2.95.x? Note that Intel and Comeau adopts that "particular"
initialization order and the current "equivalent" one ;-) breaks a whole
body of literature on template metaprogramming...
Perhaps. It may also be that picking one order makes this example work,
but some similar example fail.
Certainly, you are welcome to contribute a patch. If it isn't
particularly ugly, and doesn't break conformance, I'd be in favor of
accepting it.
But, it's not a high priority for me -- and I'm focusing my GCC time on
high-priority bugs and the new parser.
--
Mark Mitchell mark@codesourcery.com
CodeSourcery, LLC http://www.codesourcery.com