https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106932
--- Comment #6 from Tom Allen <thomas.allen at intel dot com> --- (In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #5) > (In reply to Tom Allen from comment #4) > > If this is the case, then when I have subdirectories which I explicitly do > > not want to copy, but files at the same level in the source directory which > > I do want to overwrite in their destinations, there is no way to perform the > > operation unless I manually iterate and check file types, then call > > copy_file(). > > I don't think that's quite true. You can still use filesystem::copy, you > just need to use copy_options specific to the file type. So iterate over the > directory contents and for directories, call filesystem::copy with no > arguments, and for files, call filesystem::copy with update_existing / > overwrite_existing. > > > That seems like a strange asymmetry compared to the recursive > > call. > > For a recursive call, passing copy_options that only make sense for files is > useful, because there could be files somewhere in a sub-dir that you want to > copy. Passing those when copying just a directory, without recursing, isn't > useful. > > For a shallow, non-recursive copy, I think it makes sense that you would > have to call copy for each file individually, and if you're already doing > that, it's not such a stretch to use arguments specific to the file type. > > In any case, that's what the standard says, so it's not a GCC bug. > > If you think this is a defect in the standard then report it to the > committee instead: > https://cplusplus.github.io/LWG/lwg-active.html#submit_issue In this case, would it be possible to add a warning to the compiler for this usage? Even with -Wall -Wextra it's silent, and since it functions as a no-op, it's somewhat confusing to track down.
