https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95772
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely <redi at gcc dot gnu.org> --- (In reply to Marc Pawlowsky from comment #0) > I expected a diagnostic saying that operator= cannot be defaulted which is > seen if the ASSIGN code is enabled. The code compiles cleanly. As expected. The C++ standard is clear about what this code means. The explicitly defaulted assignment operator is defined as deleted, because it would be ill-formed. Defaulting it doesn't mean it will be provided by the compiler. > When I wrote this bug in a large code base with -03 and -flto the code will > fail with illegal instructions and other memory corruption errors. No > problem without optimization. What bug? The type is not assignable, how can that fail at runtime?
