[Bug c++/46145] New: [C++0x] Should defaulted copy constructor imply default move constructor?

[tom.prince at ualberta dot net]

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46145

           Summary: [C++0x] Should defaulted copy constructor imply
                    default move constructor?
           Product: gcc
           Version: 4.6.0
            Status: UNCONFIRMED
          Severity: normal
          Priority: P3
         Component: c++
        AssignedTo: unassig...@gcc.gnu.org
        ReportedBy: tom.pri...@ualberta.net


Does a class with an explicitly defaulted const& copy constructor have a
default move constructor?   n3126: 12.8.11 seems to indicate that it should.

However, the attached test case doesn't work.