Joern Rennecke wrote:
> But at any rate, the subject does not agree with
> the content of the original post. When we talk
> about a 'regression' in a particular gcc version,
> we generally mean that this version is in some
> way worse than a previous version of gcc.
Didn't the original poster ind
2009/5/28 Andrew Pinski:
>
> GCC see http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24314 .
>
hmm.. known since 2005. Is there some difficulty in fixing this ?
[Sorry, I pasted the wrong compiler output (but for the same bug).
Below is the corrected e-mail. ]
I've come across a possible issue with GCC's adherence to the C++
standard for handling template code (gcc version 4.3.2 20081105 from
Fedora 10).
The following code compiles fine under GCC (using
Hello,
I've come across a possible issue with GCC's adherence to the C++
standard for handling template code (gcc version 4.3.2 20081105 from
Fedora 10).
The following code compiles fine under GCC (using -pedantic and
-std=c++98), but fails under Microsoft's C++ 2008 SP1.
Microsoft explains this
On 12/11/2008, René Bürgel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> If all members of the union are const, why don't you just make the union
> itself const?
The const for the union seems to be ignored (code below). The
original reason behind the union shenanigans was to provide a
compile-time alias to anothe
On 12/11/2008, James Dennett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In a union only one field can be active at one time, hence
> initializing more than one makes no sense
> ...
> However, const items need to be initialized, hence potting two in a
> union makes no sense.
Conceptually there is nothing wrong w
Hello,
I've come across an oddity in C++, involving anonymous unions and
const variables. Neither of the two classes below will compile using
gcc 4.3.0. Is this a bug in gcc or the C++ standard itself ?
class my_class_1
{
union
{
const int x;
const int y;
};
my_class_1() :
