https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106547
--- Comment #3 from Jiang An <de34 at live dot cn> --- (In reply to Valentine Anderson from comment #2) > From what I understand, the key feature of trivially copyable types is that > memcpy‘ing an object of such a type onto another object is equivalent to a > copy assignment. So it is possible to trivially copy such an object, using > memcpy. The current standard wording only guarantees that such copy is OK when the destination object is already created. A trivially copyable class is usually also an implicit-lifetime class, so memcpy is usually sufficient to create that object. But there're also weird trivially copyable class that is not an implicit-lifetime class (e.g. the class may have deleted copy/move ctors and trivial assignment operators). Moreover, it doesn't seem suitable to use memcpy in the cases involved in this issue...
