[Bug 765970] Re: firefox version 4.0+nobinonly-0ubuntu1 failed to build on i386

[Bug Watch Updater]

Launchpad has imported 10 comments from the remote bug at
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=623126.

If you reply to an imported comment from within Launchpad, your comment
will be sent to the remote bug automatically. Read more about
Launchpad's inter-bugtracker facilities at
https://help.launchpad.net/InterBugTracking.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
On 2011-01-05T04:11:54+00:00 Respindola wrote:

Created attachment 501245
patch

nsSimpleUnicharStreamFactory is missing a user defined constructor,
but in nsUnicharInputStream.cpp a const variable of this type is defined.

This is not valid c++. For more information see "Default initialization of
const variable of a class type requires user-defined default constructor" in
http://clang.llvm.org/compatibility.html#c++

Reply at: https://bugs.launchpad.net/firefox/+bug/765970/comments/0

------------------------------------------------------------------------
On 2011-01-05T10:44:57+00:00 Timeless-bemail wrote:

The reporter's summary and initial comment were both lame. I'm merely adjusting
the summary and providing a better link. I am not passing judgement on the
quality of the bug report.

http://clang.llvm.org/compatibility.html#default_init_const

Reply at: https://bugs.launchpad.net/firefox/+bug/765970/comments/1

------------------------------------------------------------------------
On 2011-01-05T13:54:24+00:00 Benjamin Smedberg (Mozilla) [:bs] wrote:

Just as with the other bug, the missing constructor is intentional so
that GCC does not emit a initialization function. Absent a detailed
explanation from a language lawyer, I don't think I want to accept this
change.

Reply at: https://bugs.launchpad.net/firefox/+bug/765970/comments/2

------------------------------------------------------------------------
On 2011-01-05T21:32:48+00:00 Respindola wrote:

Given the discussion on bug 623123, are you ok with it?

Reply at: https://bugs.launchpad.net/firefox/+bug/765970/comments/3

------------------------------------------------------------------------
On 2011-02-22T15:57:50+00:00 Benjamin Smedberg (Mozilla) [:bs] wrote:

*** Bug 614789 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***

Reply at: https://bugs.launchpad.net/firefox/+bug/765970/comments/4

------------------------------------------------------------------------
On 2011-03-25T18:34:41+00:00 Ehsan-mozilla wrote:

http://hg.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/rev/ca41c5663999

Reply at: https://bugs.launchpad.net/firefox/+bug/765970/comments/5

------------------------------------------------------------------------
On 2011-04-30T09:35:11+00:00 Mh+mozilla wrote:

*** Bug 645469 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***

Reply at: https://bugs.launchpad.net/firefox/+bug/765970/comments/7

------------------------------------------------------------------------
On 2011-04-30T11:12:10+00:00 Zilla-kayari wrote:

(In reply to comment #2)
> Just as with the other bug, the missing constructor is intentional so that GCC
> does not emit a initialization function. Absent a detailed explanation from a
> language lawyer, I don't think I want to accept this change.

A bit late, but language lawyer here, see
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44499#c2 for chapter and
verse. As pointed out by some of the dups of this bug, GCC 4.6 rejects
this too, see the note I added to
http://gcc.gnu.org/gcc-4.6/changes.html#cplusplus

Reply at: https://bugs.launchpad.net/firefox/+bug/765970/comments/8

------------------------------------------------------------------------
On 2011-05-03T11:41:10+00:00 Zilla-kayari wrote:

I see that the commit adds empty user-defined constructors. Did anyone consider the alternative of adding an initializer instead, as I suggested in the GCC 4.6 changes and in Bug 645469 c5?
That might avoid emitting an initialization function.

Reply at: https://bugs.launchpad.net/firefox/+bug/765970/comments/9

------------------------------------------------------------------------
On 2011-05-03T12:09:22+00:00 Mh+mozilla wrote:

(In reply to comment #8)
> I see that the commit adds empty user-defined constructors. Did anyone consider
> the alternative of adding an initializer instead, as I suggested in the GCC 4.6
> changes and in Bug 645469 c5?
> That might avoid emitting an initialization function.

I don't think it makes any difference in the generated code.

Reply at: https://bugs.launchpad.net/firefox/+bug/765970/comments/10


** Changed in: firefox
       Status: Unknown => Fix Released

** Changed in: firefox
   Importance: Unknown => Medium

** Bug watch added: GCC Bugzilla #44499
   http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44499

-- 
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Mozilla
Bugs, which is subscribed to firefox in Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/765970

Title:
  firefox version 4.0+nobinonly-0ubuntu1 failed to build on i386