On 2010-11-27, 20:22:02 -0600, Roman Kononov
wrote:
> Should this one emit the same error then? 4.6 compiles it.
>
> typedef int X;
> X test() {
>X const& a={};
>return std::move(a);
> }
Never mind. I've figured it out.
Thanks.
On 2010-11-27, 16:37:07 -0800, James Dennett
wrote:
> 4.6 appears to be right -- you cannot bind an X&& to a const X (which
> is good, as otherwise you could change the const X).
Should this one emit the same error then? 4.6 compiles it.
typedef int X;
X test() {
X const& a={};
return std:
On Sat, Nov 27, 2010 at 4:13 PM, Roman Kononov wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Is it a bug or am I missing something?
>
> $ cat test.cpp
> #include
>
> struct X {
> X()=default;
> X(X&&)=default;
> };
>
> X test() {
> X const a={};
> return std::move(a);
> }
>
> $ g++ -c -std=c++0x test.cpp
> test.cp
Hello,
Is it a bug or am I missing something?
$ cat test.cpp
#include
struct X {
X()=default;
X(X&&)=default;
};
X test() {
X const a={};
return std::move(a);
}
$ g++ -c -std=c++0x test.cpp
test.cpp: In function 'X test()':
test.cpp:10:22: error: no matching function for call
