Created on 2023-10-31.00:00:00 last changed 5 months ago
Proposed resolution (approved by CWG 2024-01-19):
Change in 9.4.1 [dcl.init.general] bullet 9.1.2 as follows:
- ...
- otherwise, the object is zero-initialized and
the semantic constraints for default-initialization are checked, and if T has a non-trivial default constructor, the object isthen default-initialized;
[Accepted as a DR at the March, 2024 meeting.]
Subclause 9.4.1 [dcl.init.general] paragraph 9 specifies:
To value-initialize an object of type T means:
- if T is a (possibly cv-qualified) class type (Clause Clause 11 [class]), then
- if T has either no default constructor (11.4.5.2 [class.default.ctor]) or a default constructor that is user-provided or deleted, then the object is default-initialized;
- otherwise, the object is zero-initialized and the semantic constraints for default-initialization are checked, and if T has a non-trivial default constructor, the object is default-initialized;
- if T is an array type, ...
The specification about checking the semantic constraints and invoking only non-trivial default constructors is overly convoluted. Omitting a call to a trivial constructor is an as-if optimization that should not be prescribed by the standard.
History | |||
---|---|---|---|
Date | User | Action | Args |
2024-07-20 13:52:34 | admin | set | status: dr -> drwp |
2024-04-05 21:43:46 | admin | set | status: ready -> dr |
2024-03-20 14:10:31 | admin | set | status: tentatively ready -> ready |
2024-01-21 13:30:12 | admin | set | messages: + msg7573 |
2024-01-21 13:30:12 | admin | set | status: open -> tentatively ready |
2023-10-31 00:00:00 | admin | create |