On Thu, May 25, 2017 at 11:52 AM, Martin Liška <mli...@suse.cz> wrote: > On 05/25/2017 05:35 AM, Martin Sebor wrote: >> On 05/12/2017 07:04 AM, Martin Liška wrote: >>> Third part removes TDF_* flags mentioned in the subject. These flags are >>> used >>> to enable all passes of specific type and Nathan has recently separated >>> these >>> by a new pair of macros. I hope moving these to a separate enum will help >>> even more. >> >> Just as an FYI, the addition of the user-defined constructor makes >> the class non-trivial and so unsafe to initialize by calling memset >> in C++ 11 and later. In C++ 98 that GCC is compiled with, the class >> is not a POD and so not safe to realloc (i.e., new objects must be >> brought to life by calling a constructor). I noticed this by testing >> my latest patch for the new -Wclass-memassign warning but I thought >> it might be worth noting here as well. > > Hi. > > Thanks for heads up. I'm not sure why the class is no longer POD as one can > define > constructors (but not copy-ctors) in order to preserve a type to be POD? > I'm also interested what is the new warning -Wclass-memassign about? > >> >> + /* Constructor. */ >> + dump_file_info (); >> + >> + /* Constructor. */ >> + dump_file_info (const char *_suffix, const char *_swtch, dump_kind _dkind, >> + int _num); >> + >> >> Also, making the ctor constexpr and defining it in the .c file will >> trigger Clang -Wundefined-inline and makes the ctor unusable in other >> sources. AFAICS, there is no constexpr context where the constexpr >> ctor would be needed so I'm not sure I understand its purpose. Is >> it constexpr to allow the static initialization of dump_files[0]? >> (All the other elements of the array are dynamically initialized >> by calling the other, non-constexpr ctor so that doesn't seem like >> the answer.) > > Yep, that was Richi's objection to use constexpr and I know it's used > just for the first elements of the array. > Richi?
Well, then we have to go without the constructor. Runtime init isn't an option IMHO. Just use some macros for the eye candy, will you? Richard. > Martin > >> >> Martin >
