http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48940
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48940
--- Comment #5 from Zachary Vance 2011-05-10
10:27:08 UTC ---
As long as folks are aware of this behavior and consider it proper, I
personally have no objection. I don't see any large benefit from changing it;
I was just confused when other peop
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48940
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3 f
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48940
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely 2011-05-10
10:07:53 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #2)
> Sorry to be cryptic as to the part of the standard I was talking about. Yes,
> I
> was referring to report 391/589.
>
> Yes, I agree that g++ should not
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48940
--- Comment #2 from Zachary Vance 2011-05-10
09:48:47 UTC ---
Sorry to be cryptic as to the part of the standard I was talking about. Yes, I
was referring to report 391/589.
Yes, I agree that g++ should not issue an error for this file running
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48940
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely 2011-05-10
09:08:39 UTC ---
I assume you're talking about binding the A& to a B object without an
accessible copy constructor?
That was the subject of a Defect Report against C++03 so has been fixed in G++,
the
