https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96501
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely <redi at gcc dot gnu.org> --- (In reply to Nuno Lopes from comment #0) > I see a lot of old code that has copy constructors defined, but not move > constructors. This pessimizes code since the definition of the copy > constructor hides the default move constructor. If you need a user-defined copy constructor, a defaulted move constructor probably isn't going to do the right thing anyway.
