feedc0de/boost_config
1
0
Fork 0
forked from boostorg/config
Code Pull Requests Activity

Added link to a new value-initialization compiler bug report: http://qc.embarcadero.com/wc/qcmain.aspx?d=83751

Browse Source 
[SVN r61203]
This commit is contained in:
Niels Dekker
2010-04-11 15:27:32 +00:00
parent 580762f388
commit 5bc1a8e9fb
1 changed files with 10 additions and 1 deletions
Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files

11
test/boost_no_com_value_init.ipp
View File

@ -72,7 +72,7 @@ namespace boost_no_complete_value_initialization
return arg.data == 0;
}
// Equivalent to the struct TData from CodeGear bug report 51854
// Equivalent to the struct TData from CodeGear bug report 51854,
// "Value-initialization: POD struct should be zero-initialized",
// reported by me (Niels Dekker, LKEB) in 2007:
// http://qc.embarcadero.com/wc/qcmain.aspx?d=51854
@ -372,6 +372,15 @@ namespace boost_no_complete_value_initialization
public:
value_initializer()
:
// Note: CodeGear/Borland may produce a warning, W8039, for each data member
// whose type is an array type, saying "Constructor initializer list ignored".
// If it does, it probably won't value-initialize those arrays, as reported
// by me (Niels Dekker, LKEB) in 2010, report 83751, "Value-initialization:
// arrays should have each element value-initialized",
// http://qc.embarcadero.com/wc/qcmain.aspx?d=83751
// On the other hand, Microsoft Visual C++ may produce warnings of type C4351,
// saying "new behavior: elements of array '...' will be default initialized",
// which is actually the right behavior!
int_struct(),
m_enum_holder(),
m_enum_holder_array(),