[Bug c++/60417] [DR 1518] Bogus error on C++03 aggregate initialization

["daniel.kruegler at googlemail dot com" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>]

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60417

--- Comment #4 from Daniel Krügler <daniel.kruegler at googlemail dot com> ---
I have submitted a request to the core group for clarification, but personally
I believe that the intention is clearly to never implicitly-declare an explicit
default constructor, just as we have the same rule for copy/move consttructors.
>From gcc-bugs-return-445440-listarch-gcc-bugs=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org Wed Mar 05 07:57:49 2014
Return-Path: <gcc-bugs-return-445440-listarch-gcc-bugs=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Delivered-To: listarch-gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Received: (qmail 25453 invoked by alias); 5 Mar 2014 07:57:48 -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
Delivered-To: mailing list gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Received: (qmail 25382 invoked by uid 48); 5 Mar 2014 07:57:43 -0000
From: "aoliva at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug debug/60381] [4.9 Regression] ICE: in vt_expand_var_loc_chain, at var-tracking.c:8245
Date: Wed, 05 Mar 2014 07:57:00 -0000
X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC
X-Bugzilla-Type: changed
X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None
X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc
X-Bugzilla-Component: debug
X-Bugzilla-Version: 4.9.0
X-Bugzilla-Keywords:
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: aoliva at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Status: ASSIGNED
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P2
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: aoliva at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: 4.9.0
X-Bugzilla-Flags:
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: bug_status cf_reconfirmed_on component assigned_to everconfirmed
Message-ID: <bug-60381-4-6ZWzxod2FZ@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-60381-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-60381-4@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: 2014-03/txt/msg00309.txt.bz2
Content-length: 1112

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id`381

Alexandre Oliva <aoliva at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|UNCONFIRMED                 |ASSIGNED
   Last reconfirmed|                            |2014-03-05
          Component|middle-end                  |debug
           Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org      |aoliva at gcc dot gnu.org
     Ever confirmed|0                           |1

--- Comment #4 from Alexandre Oliva <aoliva at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
Mine.  Wow, I didn't see that one coming.  I thought we only have links from
preserved values to other preserved values, but this proves this is not the
case.  A reversal of 208220 will certainly fix that, but I'm assessing the
impact of that on the pr59992 fix, and looking into combining the two table
cleanups at cselib_reset_table into a single pass.  I have a hunch there's some
remaining complexity from back when we actually visited each insn twice and had
to roll back cselib table changes.