clang's compound-literal-in-C++ extension behaves differently from GCC's when initializing a reference

[llvmbot]

Bugzilla Link	37171
Version	unspecified
OS	Linux
Reporter	LLVM Bugzilla Contributor
CC	@DougGregor,@zygoloid

Extended Description

The test code is as follow:

class C {}
a = (const C &) {};

clang++ produces an error message:

1testcase.cpp:2:5: error: reference to type 'const C' cannot bind to an
      initializer list
a = (const C &) {};
    ^           ~~
1 error generated.

However, g++ compiles the above code without any errors. Is this a problem of clang or gcc?

[ec04fc15-fa35-46f2-80e1-5d271f2ef708]

However, g++ compiles the above code without any errors. Is this a problem of clang or gcc?

No, this is a language extension in both compilers, and the two compilers have somewhat different extensions. Clang tries to make its C++ compound-literal extension match C compound-literals, whereas GCC defines (T){...} as being the same as T{...}.

However, being more GCC-compatible here seems like it might be a good thing, since C doesn't have references.

[llvmbot]

@llvm/issue-subscribers-clang-frontend

Author: None (llvmbot)

| | | | --- | --- | | Bugzilla Link | [37171](https://llvm.org/bz37171) | | Version | unspecified | | OS | Linux | | Reporter | LLVM Bugzilla Contributor | | CC | @DougGregor,@zygoloid | ## Extended Description The test code is as follow: ```cpp class C {} a = (const C &) {}; ``` clang++ produces an error message: ``` 1testcase.cpp:2:5: error: reference to type 'const C' cannot bind to an initializer list a = (const C &) {}; ^ ~~ 1 error generated. ``` However, g++ compiles the above code without any errors. Is this a problem of clang or gcc?