From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-bugs-return-432048-listarch-gcc-bugs=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 5696 invoked by alias); 17 Oct 2013 10:24:30 -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
Received: (qmail 5642 invoked by uid 48); 17 Oct 2013 10:24:26 -0000
From: "glisse at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug libstdc++/58764] [lwg/2193] error:=?UTF-8?Q?=20converting=20to=20=E2=80=98const=20std?=::vector<std::basic_string<char> >=?UTF-8?Q?=E2=80=99=20from=20initializer=20list=20would=20use=20explicit=20constructor?=
Date: Thu, 17 Oct 2013 10:24:00 -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: glisse at gcc dot gnu.org
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:
Message-ID: <bug-58764-4-KY2ReiTK1V@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-58764-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-58764-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
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/msg01192.txt.bz2

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58764

--- Comment #3 from Marc Glisse <glisse at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
(In reply to Paolo Carlini from comment #2)
> 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?

Mostly normal mode had separate constructors and debug/profile had merged
constructors.

I am in favor of applying the proposed resolution and having separate
constructors everywhere: I don't care about explicit instantiation of the whole
container class, and it has more functionality. We may want to put a
noexcept(is_nothrow_default_constructible<_Alloc>::value) on the default
constructors, not to lose anything compared to the current code.

I won't write the patch myself.