https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70551
--- Comment #2 from Roland B <rbock at eudoxos dot de> --- (In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #1) > Your interpretation would mean that whether a compiler performs copy elision > would change whether a program is well-formed or not (rather than only > changing whether any side effects of the constructor call happen). That is > not a reasonable interpretation IMHO. I see your point, but when I remove the definition from the code, it compiles just fine, because the definition is irrelevant in case of copy elision. So I could have the move constructor's declaration in file A and the definition in file B. If the definition is irrelevant, why would it matter whether or not I include the file B containing the definition?
