This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the libstdc++ project.
Re: [RFC] libstdc++/9626 and std::vector constructors
>>They are not equivalent, but the standard explicitly allows specified
>>default-argument functions to be expanded into overloads. Wherever
>>practical, our library should do it. We should do it as much as
>>possible now, because it risks breaking the ABI to do it later.
For more data, see the part of chapter 17 that talks about this:
Anyway. I'm puzzled why this change would change either the ABI (since
vector ctors not instantiated that I can see), or the API, since these
are supposed to be equivalent, and there is no derivation of this class
Granted, this stuff should not be changed casually, but I don't think
the situation is dire.