http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58714
Marc Glisse <glisse at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|RESOLVED |NEW
Last reconfirmed| |2013-10-13
CC| |glisse at gcc dot gnu.org
Resolution|DUPLICATE |---
Ever confirmed|0 |1
--- Comment #3 from Marc Glisse <glisse at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
The quoted paragraph is implemented in gcc-4.9. However, this still fails. The
strange thing is that both of these versions work:
static_cast<X&>(t ? a : b) = X{};
(t ? a : b) = static_cast<X&&>(X{});
There is special code in cp_build_modify_expr to handle assignment to a
conditional, but it contains this line:
rhs = stabilize_expr (rhs, &preeval);
which apparently loses the prvalue-ness of rhs.
I think we can consider it as a different issue from PR 53000, because
operator?: worked ok, it is the later assignment which failed. By the way, this
C++03 version:
struct X {
private:
X& operator=(const X&);
X& operator=(X& );
};
void f(bool t) {
X a, b;
*(t ? &a : &b) = X();
(t ? a : b) = X();
}
says:
c.cc: In function 'void f(bool)':
c.cc:3:6: error: 'X& X::operator=(const X&)' is private
X& operator=(const X&);
^
c.cc:9:18: error: within this context
*(t ? &a : &b) = X();
^
c.cc:4:6: error: 'X& X::operator=(X&)' is private
X& operator=(X& );
^
c.cc:10:15: error: within this context
(t ? a : b) = X();
^
c.cc:4:6: error: 'X& X::operator=(X&)' is private
X& operator=(X& );
^
c.cc:10:15: error: within this context
(t ? a : b) = X();
^
The fact that it tries to use X::operator=(X&) seems like a bug, which could
easily be turned into wrong-code.
