https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113064
--- Comment #11 from m.cencora at gmail dot com ---
This is surprising to say the least because apparently for following code
(where both conversion operators return same type) the compiler somehow
correctly chooses && qualified overload:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113064
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113064
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113064
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ppalka at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113064
--- Comment #7 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Patrick Palka :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:1c522c9eafa5b86b78cd7b3044e120762fb4c879
commit r14-6899-g1c522c9eafa5b86b78cd7b3044e120762fb4c879
Author: Patrick Palka
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113064
--- Comment #6 from Marek Polacek ---
(In reply to m.cencora from comment #4)
> This also might be a just another symptom of the same root cause:
>
> struct bar
> {
> bar() = default;
>
> bar(const bar&);
> bar(bar&&);
>
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113064
--- Comment #5 from m.cencora at gmail dot com ---
(In reply to m.cencora from comment #4)
> This also might be a just another symptom of the same root cause:
This one is actually a regression (worked on gcc 8.3 and older)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113064
--- Comment #4 from m.cencora at gmail dot com ---
This also might be a just another symptom of the same root cause:
struct bar
{
bar() = default;
bar(const bar&);
bar(bar&&);
bar& operator=(const bar&);
bar&
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113064
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113064
--- Comment #2 from m.cencora at gmail dot com ---
> When invoking the conversion operator the problem does not occur.
When invoking the conversion operator *explicitly* the problem does not occur.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113064
--- Comment #1 from m.cencora at gmail dot com ---
Fixed sample (a typo in else branch of WORKAROUND2):
struct no_copy
{
no_copy() = default;
no_copy(const no_copy&) = delete;
no_copy(no_copy&&);
no_copy& operator=(const
11 matches
Mail list logo
