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 the compiler
that assumes that trivial constructors are also always callable.
However, that might not be as big an issue for the copy constructor as
it is for the default constructor, since copies go through overload
resolution. So I guess if this patch passes the testsuite it's OK.
Ok, thanks for the clarification. Patch indeed passes testing on
x86_&4-linux, I'm going to reboot & retest & commit if everything goes
well. Let's see if people interested in this kind of defaulted special
members can come up with more complex testcases which we are still
mishandling...
Thanks again!
Paolo.
