rsmith added a comment.
In http://reviews.llvm.org/D16552#346678, @thakis wrote:
> Will do, thanks! In "If the implicit default constructor initializes all
> subobjects, no initializer should be required", is "initializes all
> subobjects meant recursively?
I think so, or more specifically, the implicit initialization would need to be
valid if each member were itself `const`.
> struct Inner {
> Inner() = default;
> int i; // not initialized, but Inner has a default ctor
> };
>
> struct S {
> Inner inner;
> };
>
> const S s;
>
This would be ill-formed because `S::S()` would notionally default-initialize
`s.inner` of type `const Inner`, which would notionally default-initialize
`s.inner.i` of type `const int`, which would be ill-formed.
http://reviews.llvm.org/D16552
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
