From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 22856 invoked by alias); 17 Oct 2013 09:01:14 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-bugs-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 22796 invoked by uid 48); 17 Oct 2013 09:01:09 -0000 From: "paolo.carlini at oracle dot com" To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug libstdc++/58764] [lwg/2193] error:=?UTF-8?Q?=20converting=20to=20=E2=80=98const=20std?=::vector >=?UTF-8?Q?=E2=80=99=20from=20initializer=20list=20would=20use=20explicit=20constructor?= Date: Thu, 17 Oct 2013 09:01:00 -0000 X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC X-Bugzilla-Type: changed X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc X-Bugzilla-Component: libstdc++ X-Bugzilla-Version: 4.9.0 X-Bugzilla-Keywords: X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal X-Bugzilla-Who: paolo.carlini at oracle dot com X-Bugzilla-Status: SUSPENDED X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3 X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: --- X-Bugzilla-Flags: X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: bug_status cf_reconfirmed_on short_desc everconfirmed Message-ID: In-Reply-To: References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/ Auto-Submitted: auto-generated MIME-Version: 1.0 X-SW-Source: 2013-10/txt/msg01181.txt.bz2 http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D58764 Paolo Carlini changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|UNCONFIRMED |SUSPENDED Last reconfirmed| |2013-10-17 Summary|error: converting to =E2=80=98const |[lwg/2193] error: |std::vector >=E2=80=99 from |std::vector >=E2=80=99 from |explicit constructor |initializer list would use | |explicit constructor Ever confirmed|0 |1 --- Comment #1 from Paolo Carlini --- At present, 4.9 is conforming to C++11 and 4.8 is not. In general this is tracked in http://cplusplus.github.io/LWG/lwg-active.html#2193 and as you c= an see there are clear issues with the separate non-explicit default construct= or vs explicit instantiations. >>From gcc-bugs-return-432038-listarch-gcc-bugs=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org Thu Oct 17 09:11:57 2013 Return-Path: Delivered-To: listarch-gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 7233 invoked by alias); 17 Oct 2013 09:11:57 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-bugs-owner@gcc.gnu.org Delivered-To: mailing list gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 7187 invoked by uid 48); 17 Oct 2013 09:11:52 -0000 From: "paolo.carlini at oracle dot com" To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug libstdc++/58764] [lwg/2193] error:=?UTF-8?Q?=20converting=20to=20=E2=80=98const=20std?=::vector >=?UTF-8?Q?=E2=80=99=20from=20initializer=20list=20would=20use=20explicit=20constructor?= Date: Thu, 17 Oct 2013 09:11:00 -0000 X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC X-Bugzilla-Type: changed X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc X-Bugzilla-Component: libstdc++ X-Bugzilla-Version: 4.9.0 X-Bugzilla-Keywords: X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal X-Bugzilla-Who: paolo.carlini at oracle dot com X-Bugzilla-Status: SUSPENDED X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3 X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: --- X-Bugzilla-Flags: X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: cc Message-ID: In-Reply-To: References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/ Auto-Submitted: auto-generated MIME-Version: 1.0 X-SW-Source: 2013-10/txt/msg01182.txt.bz2 Content-length: 898 http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58764 Paolo Carlini changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |glisse at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #2 from Paolo Carlini --- As Marc clarified elsewhere before some patches of him, pre-4.9 we were inconsistent about this, thus I understand it could also make sense to resolve the inconsistency toward separate default constructor everywhere (slightly against the letter of C++11 as-is) or even not resolving it at all, leave these bits alone for now and wait for 2193 to be resolved one way or another. Maybe Marc has a personal opinion. How many separate default constructor we used to have and how many constructors the other way?