> -----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.
|