(In reply to comment #2) > Just as with the other bug, the missing constructor is intentional so that GCC > does not emit a initialization function. Absent a detailed explanation from a > language lawyer, I don't think I want to accept this change.
A bit late, but language lawyer here, see http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44499#c2 for chapter and verse. As pointed out by some of the dups of this bug, GCC 4.6 rejects this too, see the note I added to http://gcc.gnu.org/gcc-4.6/changes.html#cplusplus
(In reply to comment #2)
> Just as with the other bug, the missing constructor is intentional so that GCC
> does not emit a initialization function. Absent a detailed explanation from a
> language lawyer, I don't think I want to accept this change.
A bit late, but language lawyer here, see http:// gcc.gnu. org/bugzilla/ show_bug. cgi?id= 44499#c2 for chapter and verse. As pointed out by some of the dups of this bug, GCC 4.6 rejects this too, see the note I added to http:// gcc.gnu. org/gcc- 4.6/changes. html#cplusplus