This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: C++ PATCH for c++/35782, 37860
- From: "H.J. Lu" <hjl dot tools at gmail dot com>
- To: Jason Merrill <jason at redhat dot com>
- Cc: gcc-patches List <gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- Date: Tue, 9 Jun 2009 04:41:29 -0700
- Subject: Re: C++ PATCH for c++/35782, 37860
- References: <4935CA05.3080201@redhat.com> <6dc9ffc80812022104r242b7afl86bfa454feed6e02@mail.gmail.com>
On Tue, Dec 2, 2008 at 10:04 PM, H.J. Lu<hjl.tools@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 2, 2008 at 3:51 PM, Jason Merrill <jason@redhat.com> wrote:
>> The C++0x atomics library wants to disable copying of atomics, but still
>> support aggregate initialization. ?Some folks on the committee thought that
>> the new initializer list extension would make this work; I thought that it
>> wouldn't, as
>>
>> struct A
>> {
>> ?A(int);
>> ?A(const A&) = delete;
>> };
>>
>> A a = { 1 };
>>
>> would involve a call to the deleted copy constructor, which is ill-formed.
>> ?But when I read over the actual standardese, there's no copy constructor
>> call involved. ?Which isn't what I had in mind when I wrote up the proposal,
>> but it seems to be what users want. ?So I've fixed the compiler accordingly.
>>
>> Tested x86_64-pc-linux-gnu, applied to trunk.
>>
This caused:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40381
--
H.J.