[Bug c++/49669] [4.6/4.7 Regression] [C++0x] Compiler crashes with "internal compiler error: in perform_member_init, at cp/init.c:530"

["redi at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla at gcc dot gnu dot org>]

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49669

Jonathan Wakely <redi at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |jason at gcc dot gnu.org

--- Comment #5 from Jonathan Wakely <redi at gcc dot gnu.org> 2011-07-07 16:39:56 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #4)
> Say, since you're here, if I change the definition of x from "Foo[2]" to
> "std::array<Foo,2>", should I be allowed to initialize it with
> 
>    Goo::Goo() : x{{Foo(4), Foo(5)}} { }

I think that should be valid

> At the moment, _only_ the following seems to work:
> 
>    Goo::Goo() : x({{Foo(4), Foo(5)}}) { }

Hmm, that creates a temporary array<Foo,2> and uses that to initialize x, I
don't think that should be necessary.

> In particular, initialization of "Foo[2]" and "std::array<Foo,2>" is anything
> but "uniform" :-)

It will never be completely uniform, because one is an array and one is an
aggregate containing an array, but I think any of these should be valid:

struct Foo { explicit Foo(int) { } };

struct TwoFoo { Foo elems[2]; };

TwoFoo x{ Foo(1), Foo(1) };
TwoFoo y{ { Foo(1), Foo(1) } };
TwoFoo z( { Foo(1), Foo(1) } );    // ?

struct Goo
{
    Foo a[2];
    TwoFoo x, y, z;

    Goo()
        : a{ Foo(1), Foo(2) }
        , x{ Foo(1), Foo(2) }
        , y{ { Foo(1), Foo(2) } }
        , z( { Foo(1), Foo(2) } )  // ?
    { }
};

Jason, when you get around to looking at this ICE, could you comment on the
initialization question above?  Thanks!