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 implicit moves and the Committee ends up returning to something similar to what we had before (I didn't follow the pre-meeting exchanges in detail, but seems well possible, see n3153) maybe we don't have to do much here in GCC ;) Looks like we should suspend this PR pending the resolution of those thorny issues...
