https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77840
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely <redi at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
(In reply to Wolfgang Roehrl from comment #0)
> Hi,
> I would like to post a bug report for the GNU C/C++ compiler 6.1.1.
> We use the compiler to generate code for a PowerPC processor.
> Invokation line for the GNU C compiler:
>
> ccppc -c -x c -std=gnu11 -Wall -Werror -g -mcpu=e6500 -m32
> -maltivec -mvrsave -ftls-model=local-exec -msdata=sysv
> -fno-common -fno-openmp -mbig -mmultiple -mno-string -misel
> -mstrict-align -fverbose-asm -G 8 -O3
> -I<some include paths>
> -D<some #define's>
> X.C -oX.O
>
>
> // file X.C
>
> struct X
> {
> X (int);
> X (const X&) = delete;
> };
>
> X arrX = { 1, 2, 3 };
I assume you meant arrX[] here?
> The compiler rejects this program because the copy constructor is
> deleted. But according to the C++11 standard this initialization
> should not involve a copy/move constructor (cf. 12.6.1/2).
I don't think that's correct. The code is roughly equivalent to:
X arrX[] = { X(1), X(2), X(3) };
and that requires a copy constructor to initialize the array elements from the
X(1), X(2), X(3) temporaries.
> By the way, the compiler accepts a slighty different programm:
>
> // file X.C
>
> struct X
> {
> X (int);
> X (const X&) = delete;
> };
>
>
> X arrX[] = { {1}, {2}, {3} };
This is valid. In this code each X in the array is direct-list-initialized from
the {1} initializer, with no temporaries to be copied.
In other words, in the first example initialization of each element is
equivalent to
X x = 1;
and in the second is equivalent to:
X x{1};
