https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87016
--- Comment #9 from bobogu at atlas dot cz ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #8)
> (In reply to bobogu from comment #7)
> > All right, I'm sorry then... I just thought that as this is undocumented, it
> > could lead to producing an unp
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87016
--- Comment #8 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to bobogu from comment #7)
> All right, I'm sorry then... I just thought that as this is undocumented, it
> could lead to producing an unportable code.
It could, except that you should get the sa
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87016
--- Comment #7 from bobogu at atlas dot cz ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #5)
> (In reply to bobogu from comment #4)
> All implementations define the assignment operator as defaulted, and so the
> compiler makes it constexpr.
>
> I
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87016
--- Comment #6 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #5)
> In fact the p0602R3 proposal you linked to is relevant, because it would
> *require* implementations to define the operator as defaulted (in order to
> be tri
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87016
--- Comment #5 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to bobogu from comment #4)
> I feel stupid, but I still don't understand how that can work in a constexpr
> context when the current c++17 standard doesn't specify any constexpr
> assignment opera
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87016
--- Comment #4 from bobogu at atlas dot cz ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #3)
> (In reply to bobogu from comment #2)
> When you assign an int to optional it is equivalent to constructing a
> temporary optional and then assigning tha
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87016
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to bobogu from comment #2)
> Do I understand it correctly that this will get optimized into one statement
> saying
>
> bar = std::optional(10);
No, it's not an optimization.
When you assign a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87016
--- Comment #2 from bobogu at atlas dot cz ---
Do I understand it correctly that this will get optimized into one statement
saying
bar = std::optional(10);
If so, is there something that could prevent such optimizations in order to
check if th
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87016
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
