http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49174
--- Comment #8 from Jonathan Wakely 2011-05-28
12:13:06 UTC ---
Besides which, we *are* following it to the letter, see 1.9 [intro.execution]
paragraph 1 and the accompanying footnote
5) This provision is sometimes called the “as-if” rule, becau
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49174
--- Comment #7 from Jonathan Wakely 2011-05-28
12:01:49 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #6)
> What's so bad about following the ISO specification to the letter?
Because it makes absolutely no difference except to those who maintain the
code, and we
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49174
--- Comment #6 from Frank Kingswood
2011-05-28 08:41:05 UTC ---
What's so bad about following the ISO specification to the letter?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49174
--- Comment #5 from Paolo Carlini 2011-05-26
19:25:04 UTC ---
Over my dead body Andrew ;)
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49174
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski 2011-05-26
19:22:13 UTC ---
Note the reason why clang warns is because of some body at MS decided that
class and struct would act slightly different. I think we should not follow MS
here and not warn about this.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49174
--- Comment #3 from Paolo Carlini 2011-05-26
18:52:55 UTC ---
In my experience as implementer, the equivalence between struct and class often
makes for conciseness, like in this case: we know everything will be public
anyway, thus we can spare th
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49174
--- Comment #2 from fr...@kingswood-consulting.co.uk 2011-05-26 18:25:03 UTC ---
I realize struct and class are interchangeable.
llvm with -Wextra finds the difference worth warning about.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49174
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
