int main() {
struct WorkItem {
int node;
unsigned predecessorIndex = 0;
};
auto x = WorkItem { 0 };
return 0;
}
This code compiles fine with Clang, but not with GCC:
source_file.cpp: In function ‘int main()’:
source_file.cpp:9:25: error: no matching function for call to ‘main()::WorkItem::WorkItem()’ auto x = WorkItem { 0 }; ^
source_file.cpp:9:25: note: candidates are:
source_file.cpp:4:10: note: main()::WorkItem::WorkItem() struct WorkItem { ^
source_file.cpp:4:10: note: candidate expects 0 arguments, 1 provided
source_file.cpp:4:10: note: constexpr main()::WorkItem::WorkItem(const main()::WorkItem&)
source_file.cpp:4:10: note: no known conversion for argument 1 from ‘int’ to ‘const main()::WorkItem&’
source_file.cpp:4:10: note: constexpr main()::WorkItem::WorkItem(main()::WorkItem&&)
source_file.cpp:4:10: note: no known conversion for argument 1 from ‘int’ to ‘main()::WorkItem&&’
Or MSVC:
source_file.cpp(9): error C2440: 'initializing': cannot convert from 'initializer list' to 'main::WorkItem'
source_file.cpp(9): note: No constructor could take the source type, or constructor overload resolution was ambiguous
Is Clang incorrectly compiling this code, or are MSVC and GCC wrong, from a standards point of view?
Also, why does removing the = 0
allow GCC and MSVC to compile? E.g.
int main() {
struct WorkItem {
int node;
unsigned predecessorIndex = 0;
};
auto x = WorkItem { 0 };
return 0;
}
GCC version: 4.9.3 Clang version: 3.7.0 MSVC version: 19.00.24215.1
-std=
option is especially going to affect the result. Also, that's a very old version of g++. – Ben Voigt