http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52755
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jason at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #4
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52755
--- Comment #3 from Holger Hopp 2012-03-29
11:50:25 UTC ---
I agree that it is possible to define operator= for each struct that
is using t1 (in the original code (C code, but compiled as C++ code)
there is not only t2, and in all of them there a
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52755
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely 2012-03-28
17:45:24 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #1)
> Assigning t2s needs to use the assignment operator, but that function can't be
> implicitly-defined because assigning the volatile member requires
> t1s::o
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52755
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely 2012-03-28
17:39:52 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #0)
> Following code compiles fine with every gcc, with every g++ -std=c++98,
> with g++-4.5 -std=c++0x, but not with g++ -std=c++0x (or -std=c++11) since
> 4.
