public inbox for gcc-bugs@sourceware.org
help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "piotr dot wyderski at gmail dot com" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug c++/44499] No default constructor available
Date: Fri, 11 Jun 2010 11:01:00 -0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20100611110132.19923.qmail@sourceware.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <bug-44499-17090@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
------- 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 indicates you can use -fpermissive to relax the warning, and it includes a
> note telling you the type has no user-provided default constructor, which is
> true. Why would you assume this is a bug, when a developer has gone to the
> trouble of writing the note?
All the compilers I am aware of accept the aforementioned construction,
so I blindly assumed that 4.6 is wrong in issuing a warning. The note's
content was considered irrelevant, since no error was expected. But if
the behaviour is OK, then it is OK no matter what a surprise it turns out to
be.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44499
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2010-06-11 11:01 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 22+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2010-06-11 9:10 [Bug c++/44499] New: " piotr dot wyderski at gmail dot com
2010-06-11 9:26 ` [Bug c++/44499] " redi at gcc dot gnu dot org
2010-06-11 10:28 ` redi at gcc dot gnu dot org
2010-06-11 10:53 ` manu at gcc dot gnu dot org
2010-06-11 11:01 ` piotr dot wyderski at gmail dot com [this message]
2010-06-11 11:12 ` manu at gcc dot gnu dot org
2010-06-11 11:12 ` manu at gcc dot gnu dot org
2010-06-11 11:14 ` manu at gcc dot gnu dot org
2010-07-02 8:09 ` manu at gcc dot gnu dot org
2010-07-02 8:12 ` pluto at agmk dot net
2010-07-02 9:15 ` manu at gcc dot gnu dot org
[not found] <bug-44499-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
2011-03-03 22:28 ` dirtyepic at gentoo dot org
2011-03-03 23:14 ` redi at gcc dot gnu.org
2011-03-03 23:16 ` redi at gcc dot gnu.org
2011-03-04 10:02 ` manu at gcc dot gnu.org
2011-03-04 11:23 ` redi at gcc dot gnu.org
2011-03-04 11:25 ` redi at gcc dot gnu.org
2011-03-17 11:46 ` dirtyepic at gentoo dot org
2011-03-17 11:46 ` redi at gcc dot gnu.org
2011-03-19 20:05 ` redi at gcc dot gnu.org
2011-09-25 14:39 ` paolo.carlini at oracle dot com
2014-02-16 10:02 ` jackie.rosen at hushmail dot com
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20100611110132.19923.qmail@sourceware.org \
--to=gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org \
--cc=gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).