On 04/26/2012 04:15 PM, Jason Merrill wrote:
On 04/25/2012 10:25 AM, Paolo Carlini wrote:
Thus, the below elementary patch appears to work fine (I also double
checked that in such cases the type remains trivial). It's all there is
to it?
Unfortunately, I don't think so; there's a lot of code in
On 04/25/2012 10:25 AM, Paolo Carlini wrote:
Thus, the below elementary patch appears to work fine (I also double
checked that in such cases the type remains trivial). It's all there is
to it?
Unfortunately, I don't think so; there's a lot of code in the compiler
that assumes that trivial cons
Hi,
this PR is about the resolution of core/1333 being unimplemented, thus
we reject things like:
struct foo
{
foo(foo&) = default; // ERROR HERE
};
(and this can be annoying, as explained by Eric on the reflector, for
example when one has to resort to out-of-class defaulti
