This is the mail archive of the gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org mailing list for the GCC project.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: [c++] RFC: partial C99 designated-initializers support


Joseph S. Myers wrote:
If anyone produces a specific proposal to include designated initializers in C++0x then they'll need to deal with the destructor order issue. Without such a proposal, perhaps they should be limited to POD types in C++, though I don't know offhand if that suffices to avoid all problems with the definition of their semantics in C++.

C++ already has a sequence point issue with initializers like, int i = 0; int ary[4] = {i++, i++, i++, i++}; I recall asking whether this is undefined or not. I _think_ the response was that it is undefined, (because of lack of sequence points), but I can't find any documentation to that effect now. I think it was in response to a bug report though.

nathan

--
Nathan Sidwell    ::   http://www.codesourcery.com   ::     CodeSourcery LLC
nathan@codesourcery.com    ::     http://www.planetfall.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk



Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]