http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56836
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56836
Daniel Krügler changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||daniel.kruegler at
|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56836
--- Comment #3 from rob.desbois at gmail dot com 2013-04-03 21:30:31 UTC ---
Agh you're right Andrew. Not the first time that rule has caught me out.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56836
--- Comment #2 from Paolo Carlini 2013-04-03
20:58:22 UTC ---
Not having analyzed the testcase in any detail, apparently clang++ behaves
exactly like GCC.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56836
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski 2013-04-03
20:53:00 UTC ---
I think:
: foo( const_cast< const foo& >(f) )
calls the copy constructor which templates can never be a copy constructor.
