On 12/09/2016 05:34 AM, Nathan Sidwell wrote:
On 12/08/2016 03:42 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
On 12/08/2016 01:28 PM, Marek Polacek wrote:
On Thu, Dec 08, 2016 at 02:56:56PM -0500, Nathan Sidwell wrote:
struct Foo {
int a;
char ary[];
Foo () : ary ("bob"){}
Clang accepts this test case although it does reject the originally
submitted test case with the messages below. I think GCC should
accept the latter case for compatibility. If it is accepted then
rejecting the original test case will make the array initialization
irregular. I think it would be nice if they both could accepted
but I don't know how much work it would be to make it work.
I think all these should be rejected for the same reason -- they're
equally unmeaningfull. The string being used must be a string literal
-- not a pointer to a caller-provided string, or template argument
(which I could see as plausible use cases). So the problem is being
baked into the class or ctor definition.
I'm not sure I understand what you mean. Since the following is
valid and meaningful (i.e., initializes the array with the elements
of the string):
struct Foo {
int a;
char ary[4];
Foo () : ary ("bob") {}
};
then (IMO) so is this:
struct Foo {
int a;
char ary[];
Foo () : ary ("bob") {}
};
Martin
PS I do agree that it's probably too late to make this work for GCC
7 and that rejecting it is better than an ICE.
