https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79671
Michael Matz <matz at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |matz at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #64 from Michael Matz <matz at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
I would find it extremely surprising if in
a = b;
the RHS doesn't constitute an access to the value of object 'b' (even depending
on the type of b). Are you really saying this Jason? (just trying to make
extra
sure)
(e.g. 5.17/2 is saying about the assignment operator, before any
differentiation
between class and non-class types:
"In simple assignment (=), the value of the expression replaces that of the
object referred to by the left operand."
How could it talk about the value of the expression if the RHS doesn't
constitute an access to the value of that expression? While /4 specifies that
the actual assignment is carried out by the copy/move assignment operator and
hence via object representation for unions when implicit (12.8/29), we cannot
simply ignore the above sentence, can we?)
