On 17/09/18 20:10 +0100, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
On 17/09/18 21:55 +0300, Ville Voutilainen wrote:
On Mon, 17 Sep 2018 at 21:50, Jonathan Wakely <jwak...@redhat.com> wrote:
"I used C++11 syntax because I find it nicer, and the compiler accepts
it in C++98 mode with just a warning, suppressed in a standard
header."
Oh sorry, I just looked at the patch and replied without reading the
top bit.
Even with -Wsystem-headers I don't get a warning, I have to precompile
with -P -E then compile the result to get "warning: extended
initializer lists only available with -std=c++11 or -std=gnu++11".
OK for trunk then.
Do other compilers besides gcc suppress the same way?
No, clang doesn't:
In file included from bv.cc:1:
In file included from
/home/jwakely/gcc/latest/lib/gcc/x86_64-pc-linux-gnu/9.0.0/../../../../include/c++/9.0.0/vector:65:
/home/jwakely/gcc/latest/lib/gcc/x86_64-pc-linux-gnu/9.0.0/../../../../include/c++/9.0.0/bits/stl_bvector.h:812:16:
error: non-aggregate type 'std::vector<bool, type-parameter-0-0>::iterator'
(aka 'std::_Bit_iterator') cannot be initialized with an initializer list
{ return { this->_M_impl._M_start, 0 }; }
And for the avoidance of doubt, it's the same error if I make the
correct change to the header:
{ return { this->_M_impl._M_start._M_p, 0 }; }
^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
bv.cc:6:5: note: in instantiation of member function 'std::vector<bool,
std::allocator<bool> >::begin' requested here
b.begin();
^
1 error generated.
So I do think we should stick to C++98 syntax.
