http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57588
--- Comment #6 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Daniel Krügler from comment #4)
> I don't think that this correct here (In C++11 the rules became relaxed).
It was post-C++11, but as a DR we should implement it, and I see you're right,
the in
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57588
--- Comment #5 from Daniel Krügler ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #2)
> Although shouldn't it fail to compile, due to private destructor and copy
> constructor?
I agree, it should fail. Interesting is, that the code compiles even w
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57588
Daniel Krügler changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||daniel.kruegler@googlemail.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57588
--- Comment #3 from Matt Clarkson ---
Thanks for that link, its very informative :) I can see why it fails to link
now.
About the private destructor, I'd expect it to not compile, but it does. I
actually didn't even realise I'd made it private a
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57588
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Although shouldn't it fail to compile, due to private destructor and copy
constructor?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57588
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Isn't this just
http://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/VerboseDiagnostics#missing_static_const_definition ?
