Am 03.10.2017 um 11:35 schrieb Raphael Neider: > Hi, > > On Oct 3, 2017 10:33, "Philipp Klaus Krause" <p...@spth.de > <mailto:p...@spth.de>> wrote: > > Am 01.10.2017 um 23:40 schrieb alvin albrecht: > > > > I have a couple of compile issues using vs2015 with the current > version > > 10024. > > > > (1) > > In sdcc/src/SDCCralloc.hpp line 618, the compiler complains that there > > is an attempt to use deleted operator=. > > Line 591 gives the option to use alternative code and if I set the > IF to > > 0, the compile is fine. > > > > C:\Program Files (x86)\Microsoft Visual Studio > > 14.0\VC\include\xutility(458): error C2280: > > 'assignments_introduce_instruction::inserter_t > > &assignments_introduce_instruction::inserter_t::operator =(const > > assignments_introduce_instruction::inserter_t &)': attempting to > > reference a deleted function > > > > 2> C:\Projects\z80\z88dk\zsdcc\sdcc\src\SDCCralloc.hpp(618): note: > > compiler has generated > > 'assignments_introduce_instruction::inserter_t::operator =' here > > > > 2> C:\Program Files (x86)\Microsoft Visual Studio > > 14.0\VC\include\algorithm(3211): note: see reference to function > > template instantiation '_Iter &std::_Rechecked<_OutIt,_OutIt>(_Iter > > &,_UIter)' being compiled > > I don't think I know C++ well enough to really see what's going on here. > But it seems GCC 7 doesn't complain about that code, even when using > -pedantic --std=c++11 -Wall. > So maybe we just make the alternative code the default for Microsoft > Visual C++? > > > To me this looks as if Microsoft generates the operator=(iterator_t > &rhs) for our local struct as deleted, possibly because we do define > some constructors and/or operator=() overloads. Manually providing an > implementation of said (copy-)assignment operator - copying all fields > from rhs to *this - might do the trick... > The copy assignment operator is likely required for the (unused) return > value of set_intersection(). > > Best regards, > Raphael
I thought copy asignment opertators were only generated as deleted if there is a user-declared move constructor. But the constructor that I declared is not a move constructor. For now (revision 10033) I just implemented the simple workaround of replacing #if 1 by #if !defined(_MSC_VER) Philipp ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot _______________________________________________ Sdcc-user mailing list Sdcc-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/sdcc-user
