| Issue |
167217
|
| Summary |
[Clang] Clang sometimes fails to propagate deletion of special member functions from an unnamed `struct`
|
| Labels |
clang:frontend,
diverges-from:gcc,
diverges-from:msvc,
diverges-from:edg
|
| Assignees |
|
| Reporter |
frederick-vs-ja
|
Currently, for the following example. Clang doesn't think the copy/move constructors of `Wrapper2` (a class template specialization) are deleted, while it (probably correctly) thinks copy/move constructors of `Wrapper` (a non-template class) are deleted.
Other compilers seemingly correctly propagate the deletion (when unnamed `struct` is enabled). https://godbolt.org/z/MeqMMGncG
```C++
struct NonMovable {
NonMovable(const NonMovable&) = delete;
};
struct Wrapper {
struct {
NonMovable v;
};
};
static_assert(!__is_constructible(Wrapper, const Wrapper&));
static_assert(!__is_constructible(Wrapper, Wrapper));
template<class T>
struct WrapperTmpl {
struct {
NonMovable v;
};
};
using Wrapper2 = WrapperTmpl<NonMovable>;
static_assert(!__is_constructible(Wrapper2, const Wrapper2&)); // Clang thinks Wrapper2 is copy constructible (?)
static_assert(!__is_constructible(Wrapper2, Wrapper2)); // Clang thinks Wrapper2 is move constructible (?)
```
![]()
_______________________________________________
llvm-bugs mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-bugs
