On 01/31/2014 11:00 PM, Jason Merrill wrote:
On 01/28/2014 01:37 PM, Paolo Carlini wrote:
... by the way, I don't understand why we are appending the constructor
at all for the unnamed bit-field?!? Eg, what about the below?
I agree, it doesn't seem necessary; output_constructor deals fine with
On 01/28/2014 01:37 PM, Paolo Carlini wrote:
... by the way, I don't understand why we are appending the constructor
at all for the unnamed bit-field?!? Eg, what about the below?
I agree, it doesn't seem necessary; output_constructor deals fine with a
sparse CONSTRUCTOR. This patch is OK.
J
... by the way, I don't understand why we are appending the constructor
at all for the unnamed bit-field?!? Eg, what about the below?
Thanks,
Paolo.
Index: cp/typeck2.c
===
--- cp/typeck2.c(revision 207
