http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39901
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|REOPENED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39901
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
Last reconfirmed|
--- Comment #5 from jsdeckerido at gmail dot com 2010-08-02 01:22 ---
how is this invalid?
it shouldn't matter whether map defines operator[](std::initializer_list<>),
only operator[](std::pair) for std::map,int>.
{1, 2} should then be used to initialize that pair.
--
http://gcc.g
--- Comment #4 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2009-08-01 18:12
---
Closing.
--
paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Sta
--- Comment #3 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2009-07-31 16:26
---
Actually, this one seems invalid to me: std::map does *not* define an
operator[](std::initializer_list<>). Waiting a bit for Jason to confirm, then
closing.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3
--- Comment #2 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2009-07-31 16:16
---
I'm sorry Jason, a ping... ;)
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39901
--- Comment #1 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2009-04-25 22:30
---
Jason, can you have a look? Thanks.
--
paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
--
