3 ms·
As I explained, those are only "breaking changes" in the sense that some code might break in practice, not that we changed the language definition. GCC did not
by pcwalton 10y ago
As I explained, those are only "breaking changes" in the sense that some code might break in practice, not that we changed the language definition.
GCC did not provide a switch to get the old copy constructor behavior back when they made it stricter and broke my code.