From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-bugs-return-349038-listarch-gcc-bugs=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 17704 invoked by alias); 3 Mar 2011 22:28:57 -0000
Received: (qmail 17678 invoked by uid 22791); 3 Mar 2011 22:28:56 -0000
X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.9 required=5.0	tests=ALL_TRUSTED,AWL,BAYES_00
X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org
Received: from localhost (HELO gcc.gnu.org) (127.0.0.1)    by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Thu, 03 Mar 2011 22:28:51 +0000
From: "dirtyepic at gentoo dot org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug c++/44499] No default constructor available
X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC
X-Bugzilla-Type: changed
X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None
X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc
X-Bugzilla-Component: c++
X-Bugzilla-Keywords:
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: dirtyepic at gentoo dot org
X-Bugzilla-Status: ASSIGNED
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: manu at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: ---
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: CC
Message-ID: <bug-44499-4-PlSgSpkumM@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-44499-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-44499-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Date: Thu, 03 Mar 2011 22:28:00 -0000
Mailing-List: contact gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <gcc-bugs.gcc.gnu.org>
List-Archive: <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-bugs/>
List-Post: <mailto:gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org>
Sender: gcc-bugs-owner@gcc.gnu.org
X-SW-Source: 2011-03/txt/msg00351.txt.bz2

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44499

Ryan Hill <dirtyepic at gentoo dot org> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |dirtyepic at gentoo dot org

--- Comment #10 from Ryan Hill <dirtyepic at gentoo dot org> 2011-03-03 22:28:45 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #3)
> (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.html page or in
> porting_to.html

Could this be added?  Some upstreams are arguing this is a bug in GCC.  In the
past we've found that if it's documented that this change was indeed
intentional, they're more willing to fix their code.