From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-bugs-return-393173-listarch-gcc-bugs=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 21621 invoked by alias); 29 May 2012 23:34:28 -0000
Received: (qmail 21519 invoked by uid 22791); 29 May 2012 23:34:27 -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 23:34:15 +0000
From: "redi at gcc dot gnu.org" <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 23:36:00 -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: redi at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Status: NEW
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P5
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: 4.7.1
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields:
Message-ID: <bug-53494-4-WQCgUrSPK4@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"
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/msg02791.txt.bz2

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53494

--- Comment #16 from Jonathan Wakely <redi at gcc dot gnu.org> 2012-05-29 23:34:14 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #14)
> struct pair
> {
>   pair(const char*, int) { }
> };
> 
> struct array_p
> {
>   pair data[1];
> };
> 
> array_p a  = { { "smile", 1 } };
> 
> Here we have definitively brace elision in action, but I get the same error as
> from Jonathan's example.


"If the initializer-list begins with a left brace,"

which it does

"then the succeeding comma-separated list of initializer-clauses initializes
the members of a subaggregate;"

I read that to mean that { "smile", 1 } initializes the pair[1]

"it is erroneous for there to be more initializer-clauses than members."

There is only one member of pair[1] but two initializer-clauses.

So I think the error is required, but Daniel is usually right about such things
so I'm not certain :)