From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-bugs-return-393166-listarch-gcc-bugs=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 4232 invoked by alias); 29 May 2012 21:17:13 -0000
Received: (qmail 4220 invoked by uid 22791); 29 May 2012 21:17:12 -0000
X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-4.3 required=5.0	tests=ALL_TRUSTED,AWL,BAYES_00,KHOP_THREADED
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; Tue, 29 May 2012 21:16:59 +0000
From: "daniel.kruegler at googlemail dot com" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug c++/53494] [4.7/4.8 Regression] ICE with invalid initializer list
Date: Tue, 29 May 2012 22:14:00 -0000
X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC
X-Bugzilla-Type: changed
X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None
X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc
X-Bugzilla-Component: c++
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: error-recovery, ice-on-invalid-code
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: daniel.kruegler at googlemail dot com
X-Bugzilla-Status: ASSIGNED
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P5
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: paolo.carlini at oracle dot com
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: 4.7.1
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields:
Message-ID: <bug-53494-4-RdU6PVVVyI@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-53494-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-53494-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
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: 2012-05/txt/msg02784.txt.bz2

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D53494

--- Comment #14 from Daniel Kr=C3=BCgler <daniel.kruegler at googlemail dot=
 com> 2012-05-29 21:16:57 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #13)
> Am I interpreting correctly that double braces are /required/ for std::ar=
ray
> init lists but only when the subtype has has a multivariable initializer =
too?

I must agree that the compiler behaviour does not look correct to me. Initi=
ally
I thought that the reason is due to the fact, that brace-elision does not a=
pply
here, but then I noticed that this code does not compile either:

struct pair
{
  pair(const char*, int) { }
};

struct array_p
{
  pair data[1];
};

array_p a  =3D { { "smile", 1 } };

Here we have definitively brace elision in action, but I get the same error=
 as
from Jonathan's example. My impression is that the compiler incorrectly does
not see the brace-elision case here.

Here is an example that works (with an expected [-Wmissing-braces] warning):

struct string
{
  string(const char*) { }
};

struct array_s
{
  string data[1];
};

array_s b{ "smile" };

=46rom this I see that gcc already implements

http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/cwg_active.html#1270

so I must conclude that the compiler should also accept the original exampl=
e.