Databases
StackOverflow2013
Postsdbo
PO
 

Note that there are some explanatory texts on larger screens.

plurals
  1. PO
    primarykey
    data
    text
    <p><strong>Update:</strong> Thanks to Faisal Vali and Richard Smith, this bug has been corrected in Clang ToT; see the <a href="http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project/cfe/trunk/test/CodeGenCXX/cxx11-initializer-array-new.cpp?revision=196995&amp;view=markup&amp;pathrev=196995">test file</a> introduced by the commit.</p> <hr> <p>According to <strong>§8.5.1 [dcl.init.aggr]</strong> it appears that Clang is wrong:</p> <blockquote> <p>11/ Braces can be elided in an <em>initializer-list</em> as follows. If the <em>initializer-list</em> begins with a left brace, then the succeeding comma-separated list of <em>initializer-clauses</em> initializes the members of a subaggregate; it is erroneous for there to be more <em>initializer-clauses</em> than members. If, however, the <em>initializer-list</em> for a subaggregate does not begin with a left brace, then only enough <em>initializer-clauses</em> from the list are taken to initialize the members of the subaggregate; any remaining <em>initializer-clauses</em> are left to initialize the next member of the aggregate of which the current subaggregate is a member. [ <em>Example:</em></p> <pre><code>float y[4][3] = { { 1, 3, 5 }, { 2, 4, 6 }, { 3, 5, 7 }, }; </code></pre> <p>is a completely-braced initialization: 1, 3, and 5 initialize the first row of the array <code>y[0]</code>, namely <code>y[0][0]</code>, <code>y[0][1]</code>, and <code>y[0][2]</code>. Likewise the next two lines initialize <code>y[1]</code> and <code>y[2]</code>. The initializer ends early and therefore <code>y[3]</code>s elements are initialized as if explicitly initialized with an expression of the form <code>float()</code>, that is, are initialized with <code>0.0</code>. In the following example, braces in the <em>initializer-list</em> are elided; however the <em>initializer-list</em> has the same effect as the completely-braced <em>initializer-list</em> of the above example,</p> <pre><code>float y[4][3] = { 1, 3, 5, 2, 4, 6, 3, 5, 7 }; </code></pre> <p>The initializer for y begins with a left brace, but the one for <code>y[0]</code> does not, therefore three elements from the list are used. Likewise the next three are taken successively for <code>y[1]</code> and <code>y[2]</code>. —<em>end example</em> ]</p> </blockquote> <p>Which I think applies because of <strong>§5.3.4 [expr.new]</strong>:</p> <blockquote> <p>15/ A <em>new-expression</em> that creates an object of type T initializes that object as follows:</p> <ul> <li>If the <em>new-initializer</em> is omitted, the object is default-initialized (<strong>§8.5</strong>); if no initialization is performed, the object has indeterminate value.</li> <li>Otherwise, the <em>new-initializer</em> is interpreted according to the initialization rules of <strong>§8.5</strong> for direct initialization.</li> </ul> </blockquote>
    singulars
    1. This table or related slice is empty.
    1. PODifferent results between gcc and clang when compiling a rather simple c++11 program
      singulars
      1. PTQuestion
    1. PTAnswer
    1. USMatthieu M.
    1. USMatthieu M.
    plurals
    1. This table or related slice is empty.
    1. This table or related slice is empty.
    1. PODifferent results between gcc and clang when compiling a rather simple c++11 program
      singulars
      1. PTQuestion
    1. This table or related slice is empty.
    1. VO
      singulars
      1. PO
      1. This table or related slice is empty.
      1. VTUpMod
    2. VO
      singulars
      1. PO
      1. This table or related slice is empty.
      1. VTUpMod
    3. VO
      singulars
      1. PO
      1. This table or related slice is empty.
      1. VTUpMod
    1. CO+1 The last sentence in your 2nd quote basically says it. The initializers are to be interpreted the same (and since they're identical in the code snippet, the output thus must be identical too).
      singulars
      1. PO
      1. USDamon
    2. CO@Damon: I hope so, however past experience dictates that for every absolute in the Standard, there is at least one exception hidden away in an unrelated paragraph... not even counting that this applies only if `{ ... }` is indeed a *new-initializer* :/
      singulars
      1. PO
      1. USMatthieu M.
    3. COI submitted a bug report on the LLVM bugzilla platform. It has indeed been recognized as a bug, a patch is currently under review, see http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/cfe-commits/Week-of-Mon-20131209/095099.html. I'll edit the original question so as to reflect the change.
      singulars
      1. PO
      1. USIlio Catallo
 

Querying!

 
Guidance
A row detail

Detail views are divided into sections. All the information in the data section comes from columns in the selected row. The other sections display data from other, related rows.

Related data can be related in a to-one or a to-many fashion. Captions of data related in a to-many fashion link to a list view showing a filtered view of the table.

Try moving around until you find a non-empty to-many entry and click on the label to get to one. You can move back to the root by clicking on the database name in the header.

SQuiL has stopped working due to an internal error.

If you are curious you may find further information in the browser console, which is accessible through the devtools (F12).

Reload