http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44499
Jackie Rosen changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jackie.rosen at hushmail dot
com
--- Comm
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44499
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44499
--- Comment #18 from Jonathan Wakely 2011-03-19
19:56:49 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #17)
> OK, I'll update the changes page with a variation of the note in comment 11,
done
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44499
--- Comment #17 from Jonathan Wakely 2011-03-17
11:45:35 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #16)
> (In reply to comment #11)
> > GCC 4.4 and 4.5 reject the example too, so I don't know when the bug was
> > fixed,
> > it's apparently not a change in 4.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44499
--- Comment #16 from Ryan Hill 2011-03-17
11:36:15 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #11)
> GCC 4.4 and 4.5 reject the example too, so I don't know when the bug was
> fixed,
> it's apparently not a change in 4.6 (though there were some bugs in this a
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44499
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
Severity|normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44499
--- Comment #14 from Jonathan Wakely 2011-03-04
11:23:41 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #13)
> (In reply to comment #12)
> > Manu, can we close this?
>
> @Jonathan
>
> I still think that the messages of Comeau and Clang are better than GCC's. I
>
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44499
--- Comment #13 from Manuel López-Ibáñez 2011-03-04
10:02:19 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #12)
> Manu, can we close this?
@Jonathan
I still think that the messages of Comeau and Clang are better than GCC's. I
will try for 4.7 to produce a patch
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44499
--- Comment #12 from Jonathan Wakely 2011-03-03
23:16:41 UTC ---
Manu, can we close this?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44499
--- Comment #11 from Jonathan Wakely 2011-03-03
23:14:10 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #10)
> (In reply to comment #3)
> > (In reply to comment #1)
> > > gcc is correct, accepting the code previously was a bug that was fixed
> > > recently
> > >
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44499
Ryan Hill changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dirtyepic at gentoo dot org
--- Comment #10 f
--- Comment #9 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-07-02 09:15 ---
Thanks Pawel,
which diagnostic do you prefer?
I would favor clang's but I would still keep the note that points to the class
definition.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44499
--- Comment #8 from pluto at agmk dot net 2010-07-02 08:12 ---
(In reply to comment #7)
> Could someone test what clang says here? Their diagnostics are generally
> better
> than g++.
>
$ clang++ pr44499.cpp -c
pr44499.cpp:5:9: error: default initialization of an object of const type
--- Comment #7 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-07-02 08:09 ---
Could someone test what clang says here? Their diagnostics are generally better
than g++.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44499
--- Comment #6 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-06-11 11:13 ---
LLVM is still using GCC in their demo, not Clang. So I cannot test their
output.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44499
--
manu at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot gnu |manu at gcc dot gnu dot org
|dot org
--- Comment #5 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-06-11 11:11 ---
Comeau C/C++ 4.3.10.1 (Oct 6 2008 11:28:09) for ONLINE_EVALUATION_BETA2
Copyright 1988-2008 Comeau Computing. All rights reserved.
MODE:strict errors C++ C++0x_extensions
"ComeauTest.c", line 9: error: const variable
--- Comment #4 from piotr dot wyderski at gmail dot com 2010-06-11 11:01
---
(In reply to comment #2)
> A question: apart from quoting chapter and verse from the standard (8.5
> [dcl.init], para 9 in C++03, para 6 in C++0x,) how could the diagnostic have
> been any clearer?
>
> It indi
--- Comment #3 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-06-11 10:53 ---
(In reply to comment #1)
> gcc is correct, accepting the code previously was a bug that was fixed
> recently
>
> You need to provide an initializer for g_d
This sort of changes should be documented in the changes.htm
--- Comment #2 from redi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-06-11 10:27 ---
A question: apart from quoting chapter and verse from the standard (8.5
[dcl.init], para 9 in C++03, para 6 in C++0x,) how could the diagnostic have
been any clearer?
It indicates you can use -fpermissive to relax the
--- Comment #1 from redi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-06-11 09:26 ---
gcc is correct, accepting the code previously was a bug that was fixed recently
You need to provide an initializer for g_d
--
redi at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |A
21 matches
Mail list logo
