stdcxx-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Eric Lemings" <Eric.Lemi...@roguewave.com>
Subject RE: Empty member initializers
Date Wed, 11 Jun 2008 15:46:12 GMT
 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Travis Vitek [mailto:Travis.Vitek@roguewave.com] 
> Sent: Tuesday, June 10, 2008 5:14 PM
> To: dev@stdcxx.apache.org
> Subject: RE: Empty member initializers
> 
>  
> 
> Eric Lemings wrote:
> >
> > 
> >From $TOPDIR/include/rw/_pair.h:
> > 
> >     64     // 20.2.2, p2
> >     65     pair ()
> >     66 #ifndef _RWSTD_NO_EMPTY_MEM_INITIALIZER
> >     67         : first (/* lwg issue 265 */), second () { }
> >     68 #else
> >     69         // assumes types satisfy the CopyConstructible
> requirements
> >     70         : first (first_type ()), second (second_type ()) { }
> >     71 #endif   // _RWSTD_NO_EMPTY_MEM_INITIALIZER
> >
> >Are empty member initializers something we still need to concern
> >ourselves with?  Is LWG issue 265 still pertinent?
> > 
> 
> According to the defect, the resolution is in the current 
> working paper,
> so I don't think you need to worry about it changing. I don't know of
> any modern compilers for which the EMPTY_MEM_INITIALIZER.cpp 
> test would
> fail.
> 
> This all gets back to the discussion we were having a few weeks ago
> about which compiler features we should expect the compiler 
> support for
> 4.3.x.

I'm adding a Wiki page listing these compiler requirements but I can
only think of one or two ATM.  What else should be on this list?

Brad.

Mime
View raw message