https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67773
Jonathan Wakely <redi at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|--- |INVALID
--- Comment #7 from Jonathan Wakely <redi at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
(In reply to Adam Wenocur from comment #6)
> Another way of explaining the problem is that the compiler appears to be
> suppressing the wrong destructor call. Since this is a move and not a copy,
> or in C++03 it's a copy elision,
No, you can't elide an assignment to an existing variable.
> it should be suppressing the destructor
> call on the temporary variable. It's not doing this though; it's
> suppressing the first destructor call on the named variable instead.
No, that's not how C++ works.
> When I get a chance, I'll build a GCC for testing purposes. What version
> would be appropriate in this case? Is 4.8.5 supported?
No, the currently supported versions are listed on the home page,
https://gcc.gnu.org/
The oldest supported release is 4.9.3
