public inbox for gcc-bugs@sourceware.org
help / color / mirror / Atom feed
* [Bug libstdc++/56922] New: set: the default constructor should be explicit
@ 2013-04-11 15:57 akim.demaille at gmail dot com
2013-04-11 16:08 ` [Bug libstdc++/56922] " akim.demaille at gmail dot com
` (5 more replies)
0 siblings, 6 replies; 7+ messages in thread
From: akim.demaille at gmail dot com @ 2013-04-11 15:57 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56922
Bug #: 56922
Summary: set: the default constructor should be explicit
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: libstdc++
AssignedTo: unassigned@gcc.gnu.org
ReportedBy: akim.demaille@gmail.com
Hi all,
According to http://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=15724, there is no default
constructor for set, only a constructor whose arguments are optional, but it
turns out that this constructor is explicit. So, at least according to C++98
(I don't know about C++11), the following piece of code is expected to fail.
$ cat /tmp/set.cc
#include <set>
int
main()
{
std::set<int> s = {};
}
$ g++-mp-4.8 -std=c++11 -Wall /tmp/set.cc
Clang rejects it.
$ clang++-mp-3.3 -std=c++11 -Wall /tmp/set.cc -stdlib=libc++
/tmp/set.cc:5:17: error: chosen constructor is explicit in copy-initialization
std::set<int> s = {};
^ ~~
/opt/local/libexec/llvm-3.3/bin/../lib/c++/v1/set:378:14: note: constructor
declared here
explicit set(const value_compare& __comp = value_compare())
^
1 error generated.
The actual case at hand is a function with an optional argument which is a set,
and I used "= {}", which is rejected by clang++.
Cheers!
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread
* [Bug libstdc++/56922] set: the default constructor should be explicit
2013-04-11 15:57 [Bug libstdc++/56922] New: set: the default constructor should be explicit akim.demaille at gmail dot com
@ 2013-04-11 16:08 ` akim.demaille at gmail dot com
2013-04-11 16:16 ` paolo.carlini at oracle dot com
` (4 subsequent siblings)
5 siblings, 0 replies; 7+ messages in thread
From: akim.demaille at gmail dot com @ 2013-04-11 16:08 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56922
--- Comment #1 from Akim Demaille <akim.demaille at gmail dot com> 2013-04-11 16:08:07 UTC ---
FWIW: http://cplusplus.github.io/LWG/lwg-active.html#2193
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread
* [Bug libstdc++/56922] set: the default constructor should be explicit
2013-04-11 15:57 [Bug libstdc++/56922] New: set: the default constructor should be explicit akim.demaille at gmail dot com
2013-04-11 16:08 ` [Bug libstdc++/56922] " akim.demaille at gmail dot com
@ 2013-04-11 16:16 ` paolo.carlini at oracle dot com
2013-04-11 16:24 ` akim.demaille at gmail dot com
` (3 subsequent siblings)
5 siblings, 0 replies; 7+ messages in thread
From: paolo.carlini at oracle dot com @ 2013-04-11 16:16 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56922
--- Comment #2 from Paolo Carlini <paolo.carlini at oracle dot com> 2013-04-11 16:16:07 UTC ---
I was about to reply that the issue isn't just about std::set and I was trying
to remember why we decided many years ago to *not* have the explicit in the
singled out default constructors ;) Anyway, cool, I read the active DR as
implying that we are already Ok vs the proposed resolution. Therefore we should
likely suspend this in the meanwhile.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread
* [Bug libstdc++/56922] set: the default constructor should be explicit
2013-04-11 15:57 [Bug libstdc++/56922] New: set: the default constructor should be explicit akim.demaille at gmail dot com
2013-04-11 16:08 ` [Bug libstdc++/56922] " akim.demaille at gmail dot com
2013-04-11 16:16 ` paolo.carlini at oracle dot com
@ 2013-04-11 16:24 ` akim.demaille at gmail dot com
2013-04-11 16:33 ` redi at gcc dot gnu.org
` (2 subsequent siblings)
5 siblings, 0 replies; 7+ messages in thread
From: akim.demaille at gmail dot com @ 2013-04-11 16:24 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56922
--- Comment #3 from Akim Demaille <akim.demaille at gmail dot com> 2013-04-11 16:23:57 UTC ---
Agreed. Sorry for the noise, I was not aware of this page.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread
* [Bug libstdc++/56922] set: the default constructor should be explicit
2013-04-11 15:57 [Bug libstdc++/56922] New: set: the default constructor should be explicit akim.demaille at gmail dot com
` (2 preceding siblings ...)
2013-04-11 16:24 ` akim.demaille at gmail dot com
@ 2013-04-11 16:33 ` redi at gcc dot gnu.org
2014-01-29 15:48 ` [Bug libstdc++/56922] [lwg/2193] " redi at gcc dot gnu.org
2014-03-18 18:22 ` redi at gcc dot gnu.org
5 siblings, 0 replies; 7+ messages in thread
From: redi at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2013-04-11 16:33 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56922
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely <redi at gcc dot gnu.org> 2013-04-11 16:33:38 UTC ---
Yes, libstdc++ is already correct, there's nothing for us to do here
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread
* [Bug libstdc++/56922] [lwg/2193] set: the default constructor should be explicit
2013-04-11 15:57 [Bug libstdc++/56922] New: set: the default constructor should be explicit akim.demaille at gmail dot com
` (3 preceding siblings ...)
2013-04-11 16:33 ` redi at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2014-01-29 15:48 ` redi at gcc dot gnu.org
2014-03-18 18:22 ` redi at gcc dot gnu.org
5 siblings, 0 replies; 7+ messages in thread
From: redi at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2014-01-29 15:48 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56922
Jonathan Wakely <redi at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|UNCONFIRMED |SUSPENDED
Last reconfirmed| |2014-01-29
Summary|set: the default |[lwg/2193] set: the default
|constructor should be |constructor should be
|explicit |explicit
Ever confirmed|0 |1
--- Comment #5 from Jonathan Wakely <redi at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
Suspending until 2193 is resolved either way.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread
* [Bug libstdc++/56922] [lwg/2193] set: the default constructor should be explicit
2013-04-11 15:57 [Bug libstdc++/56922] New: set: the default constructor should be explicit akim.demaille at gmail dot com
` (4 preceding siblings ...)
2014-01-29 15:48 ` [Bug libstdc++/56922] [lwg/2193] " redi at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2014-03-18 18:22 ` redi at gcc dot gnu.org
5 siblings, 0 replies; 7+ messages in thread
From: redi at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2014-03-18 18:22 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56922
Jonathan Wakely <redi at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|SUSPENDED |RESOLVED
Resolution|--- |WORKSFORME
--- Comment #6 from Jonathan Wakely <redi at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
http://cplusplus.github.io/LWG/lwg-defects.html#2193
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2014-03-18 18:22 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 7+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2013-04-11 15:57 [Bug libstdc++/56922] New: set: the default constructor should be explicit akim.demaille at gmail dot com
2013-04-11 16:08 ` [Bug libstdc++/56922] " akim.demaille at gmail dot com
2013-04-11 16:16 ` paolo.carlini at oracle dot com
2013-04-11 16:24 ` akim.demaille at gmail dot com
2013-04-11 16:33 ` redi at gcc dot gnu.org
2014-01-29 15:48 ` [Bug libstdc++/56922] [lwg/2193] " redi at gcc dot gnu.org
2014-03-18 18:22 ` redi at gcc dot gnu.org
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).