Hi Juergen ! :-)
There's a regression failure of Microsoft Visual C++ 10 on a unit test Can anyone here reproduce the compile error?
Yes, using msvc-10.0 RC (I hope :-))
Thank you!
So, it seem that using (1) and (2) resolves this issue:
Index: std_bitset.cpp =================================================================== --- std_bitset.cpp (revision 60227) +++ std_bitset.cpp (working copy) @@ -17,8 +17,8 @@ int test_main(int, char*[]) { typedef std::bitset<8> bitset_type; - const bitset_type initial_value1 = 1ul; - const bitset_type initial_value2 = 2ul; + const bitset_type initial_value1(1); + const bitset_type initial_value2(2);
bitset_type object1 = initial_value1; bitset_type object2 = initial_value2;
Tested with msvc-10.0, msvc-9.0 and gcc-4.4 (mingw)
Thanks for testing on msvc-9.0 and gcc-4.4 as well! That's great. One more question: would copy-initialization work here as well? As follows: const bitset_type initial_value1 = 1; const bitset_type initial_value2 = 2; I like that syntax better than direct-initialization (using parentheses) in this case, because I want to be sure that initial_value1 will get the value 1, and initial_value2 will get the value 2. In case of direct-initialization, the initialized object may not always get the same value as the argument. (For example: when doing std::vector<int> vec(42); vec will not get the value 42.) And in case of std::bitset, I wanted to use a non-explicit constructor anyway. If copy-initialization from int to std::bitset works well, I think I'll commit that as workaround. So Juergen, please let me know, if you can give it another try, for msvc-10.0, msvc-9.0 and gcc-4.4. Kind regards, Niels