https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69354
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69354
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed|2016-01-19 00:00:00 |2019-3-14
--- Comment #7 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69354
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||rejects-valid
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69354
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #1)
> MoveOnly(MoveOnly&) =delete;
This is not caused by the faxct it's move-only, but by the unconventional
non-const parameter on the deleted copy
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69354
--- Comment #3 from Anthony Williams ---
I hadn't noticed I had omitted the const!
Surely the intent of 12.8p11.2 is that if you can't actually copy the bases
and/or members with the specified signature then the defaulted copy constructor
is
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69354
Ville Voutilainen changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69354
--- Comment #6 from Jonathan Wakely ---
We can't even partially specialize the _Head_base type on whether the element
type is M(M&) or M(const M&) because we can't detect which signature has been
deleted by using something like is_constructible.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69354
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Anthony Williams from comment #3)
> I hadn't noticed I had omitted the const!
It took me a while to spot it too!
> Surely the intent of 12.8p11.2 is that if you can't actually copy the bases
