From 0625bf17800942c93408068680a699f10c2a1e75 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: bangerth Date: Mon, 22 Aug 2011 16:42:42 +0000 Subject: [PATCH] Don't make constructor of MappingQ explicit, after all. This sounded like a good idea but at least gcc 4.1 has a bug in which it complains that the following code can't be compiled: ..................... struct Mapping { Mapping (); explicit Mapping (const Mapping &); }; void push_back (const Mapping &); int main () { push_back (Mapping()); } ..................... The error is erroneous, but we get hit by it some 20 times in the testsuite. I'm also not entirely sure whether it's worth the effort of putting a test for this in aclocal.m4 and making the constructor explicit only if the test succeeds... git-svn-id: https://svn.dealii.org/trunk@24167 0785d39b-7218-0410-832d-ea1e28bc413d --- deal.II/include/deal.II/fe/mapping_q.h | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/deal.II/include/deal.II/fe/mapping_q.h b/deal.II/include/deal.II/fe/mapping_q.h index c0c996682d..50ffaf7eed 100644 --- a/deal.II/include/deal.II/fe/mapping_q.h +++ b/deal.II/include/deal.II/fe/mapping_q.h @@ -82,7 +82,7 @@ class MappingQ : public MappingQ1 * #tensor_pols pointer as done * by a default copy constructor. */ - explicit MappingQ (const MappingQ &mapping); + MappingQ (const MappingQ &mapping); /** * Destructor. -- 2.39.5