As Jason noticed in
<https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2021-November/583592.html>,
we shouldn't require an initializer for an unnamed bit-field, because,
as [class.bit] says, they cannot be initialized.
gcc/cp/ChangeLog:
* class.c (default_init_uninitialized_part): Use
next_initializable_field.
* method.c (walk_field_subobs): Skip unnamed bit-fields.
gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog:
* g++.dg/init/bitfield6.C: New test.
if (r)
return r;
}
- for (t = TYPE_FIELDS (type); t; t = DECL_CHAIN (t))
- if (TREE_CODE (t) == FIELD_DECL
- && !DECL_ARTIFICIAL (t)
- && !DECL_INITIAL (t))
+ for (t = next_initializable_field (TYPE_FIELDS (type)); t;
+ t = next_initializable_field (DECL_CHAIN (t)))
+ if (!DECL_INITIAL (t) && !DECL_ARTIFICIAL (t))
{
r = default_init_uninitialized_part (TREE_TYPE (t));
if (r)
{
tree mem_type, argtype, rval;
- if (TREE_CODE (field) != FIELD_DECL || DECL_ARTIFICIAL (field))
+ if (TREE_CODE (field) != FIELD_DECL
+ || DECL_ARTIFICIAL (field)
+ || DECL_UNNAMED_BIT_FIELD (field))
continue;
/* Variant members only affect deletedness. In particular, they don't
--- /dev/null
+// { dg-do compile { target c++11 } }
+
+struct A
+{
+ int : 8;
+ int i = 42;
+};
+
+constexpr A a;
+
+struct B : A {
+};
+
+constexpr B b;
+
+struct C {
+ int : 0;
+};
+
+constexpr C c;