Clang跳过初始化程序列表结构的处理

问题描述

限时删除！！

如果你看下面的代码，我认为 main（）中的两行应该调用 initializer_list InitSomething 的构造函数。 gcc输出 22 如我所料，但是clang只输出一个 2 。铛是错的？

我正在编译 -std = c ++ 14 。

  #include< iostream> 
 
 struct InitSomething {
 explicit InitSomething（int）{std :: cout<< 1’ ; } 
 InitSomething（std :: initializer_list< int>）{std :: cout<< 2’ ; } 
操作符int（）{return 1; } 
}; 
 
 int main（）{
 InitSomething init_something {1}; 
 InitSomething init_something_else {init_something}; 
 
  

---

输出 clang ++ --version （我在Mac上）是

  Apple LLVM版本7.3.0（clang-703.0.31）
目标：x86_64-apple-darwin15.5.0 
线程模型：posix 
 InstalledDir：/Applications/Xcode.app/Contents/Developer/Toolchains/ XcodeDefault.xctoolchain / usr / bin 
  

和 g ++ --version的输出在我提到的另一个平台上是

  g ++（GCC）4.8.5 20150623（Red Hat 4.8 .5-4）
 Copyright（C）2015 Free Software Foundation，Inc. 
这是免费软件;请参阅复制条件的来源。没有任何b $ b保修;甚至不适用于适销性或针对特定用途的适用性。 
  

解决方案

DR1467的标题涉及聚合，但的措辞为如果 T 是一个类的类型，并且第一个项目符号不限于聚合：

然而，从这句话中走了回来（用聚合类替换类类型），所以清楚地表明，如果可行的话，initializer-list构造函数是首选的： b
$ b

所有关于排名隐式转换序列的讨论都是无关紧要的，因为非初始化列表构造函数甚至不是候选人。

Clang在DR1467之后和DR2137之前实施措辞。

If you look at the following code, I think that both the lines in main() should call the initializer_list constructor for InitSomething. gcc outputs 22 as I expected, but clang just outputs a single 2. Is clang wrong?

I am compiling with -std=c++14.

#include <iostream>

struct InitSomething {
    explicit InitSomething(int) { std::cout << '1'; }
    InitSomething(std::initializer_list<int> ) { std::cout << '2'; }
    operator int() { return 1; }
};

int main() {
    InitSomething init_something{1};
    InitSomething init_something_else{init_something};
}

---

The output of clang++ --version (I am on a mac) is

Apple LLVM version 7.3.0 (clang-703.0.31)
Target: x86_64-apple-darwin15.5.0
Thread model: posix
InstalledDir: /Applications/Xcode.app/Contents/Developer/Toolchains/XcodeDefault.xctoolchain/usr/bin

and the output of g++ --version on the other platform I mentioned is

g++ (GCC) 4.8.5 20150623 (Red Hat 4.8.5-4)
Copyright (C) 2015 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
This is free software; see the source for copying conditions.  There is NO
warranty; not even for MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.

解决方案

DR1467's title concerns aggregates, but the wording it added to [dcl.init.list]/3 as the first bullet is not limited to aggregates:

However, DR2137 walked back from this wording (replacing "a class type" with "an aggregate class"), and so this bullet no longer applies to non-aggregates like InitSomething.

Instead, [dcl.init.list]/3.6 applies, like it did pre-DR1467:

And [over.match.list] makes clear that initializer-list constructors are preferred if at all viable:

All this talk about ranking implicit conversion sequences is irrelevant because the non-initializer-list constructors are not even candidates.

Clang is implementing the wording after DR1467 and before DR2137.

这篇关于Clang跳过初始化程序列表结构的处理的文章就介绍到这了，希望我们推荐的答案对大家有所帮助，也希望大家多多支持！

1403页，肝出来的..