http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46103
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||yacwroy at gmail dot com
--- Comment #8
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46103
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46103
--- Comment #6 from Jason Merrill 2010-10-22
18:37:46 UTC ---
Author: jason
Date: Fri Oct 22 18:37:41 2010
New Revision: 165849
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=165849
Log:
PR c++/46103
* init.c (build_vec_init): Han
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46103
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46103
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jason at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #5 f
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46103
--- Comment #4 from marc.glisse at normalesup dot org 2010-10-21 05:36:58 UTC
---
Adding an explicit A(A&&)=default; doesn't help, so I don't think this is
related to the implicit stuff. More like a missing piece of code telling the
compiler how t
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46103
--- Comment #3 from Paolo Carlini 2010-10-20
23:26:33 UTC ---
What if implicitly-defined move-constructors go away again? If I understand
correctly that the bits we are missing are part of the recent work on implicit
moves and the Committee ends
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46103
--- Comment #2 from marc.glisse at normalesup dot org 2010-10-20 21:30:22 UTC
---
(In reply to comment #1)
> so this would demonstrate the problem?
[snip example]
Yes, precisely.
> I haven't checked whether this is valid
I looked at N3126 aroun
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46103
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely 2010-10-20
21:10:27 UTC ---
so this would demonstrate the problem?
struct MoveOnly {
MoveOnly(const MoveOnly&) = delete;
MoveOnly(MoveOnly&&) { }
MoveOnly() = default;
};
struct A {
MoveOnly mo[1];
};
