http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46103
Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||yacwroy at gmail
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46103
Jason Merrill jason at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46103
--- Comment #6 from Jason Merrill jason at gcc dot gnu.org 2010-10-22
18:37:46 UTC ---
Author: jason
Date: Fri Oct 22 18:37:41 2010
New Revision: 165849
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=165849
Log:
PR c++/46103
*
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46103
Jason Merrill jason at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46103
Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jason at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46103
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org 2010-10-20
21:10:27 UTC ---
so this would demonstrate the problem?
struct MoveOnly {
MoveOnly(const MoveOnly) = delete;
MoveOnly(MoveOnly) { }
MoveOnly() = default;
};
struct A {
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46103
--- Comment #2 from marc.glisse at normalesup dot org 2010-10-20 21:30:22 UTC
---
(In reply to comment #1)
so this would demonstrate the problem?
[snip example]
Yes, precisely.
I haven't checked whether this is valid
I looked at N3126 around
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46103
--- Comment #3 from Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com 2010-10-20
23:26:33 UTC ---
What if implicitly-defined move-constructors go away again? If I understand
correctly that the bits we are missing are part of the recent work on
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46103
--- Comment #4 from marc.glisse at normalesup dot org 2010-10-21 05:36:58 UTC
---
Adding an explicit A(A)=default; doesn't help, so I don't think this is
related to the implicit stuff. More like a missing piece of code telling the
compiler how to
