https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67906
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67906
--- Comment #12 from CVS Commits ---
The trunk branch has been updated by Marek Polacek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:177e93e95272e9b373203dee5b28d2b284ffa05e
commit r13-2099-g177e93e95272e9b373203dee5b28d2b284ffa05e
Author: Marek Polacek
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67906
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |mpolacek at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67906
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67906
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67906
--- Comment #9 from Nikolay Orliuk ---
Yes. Return value optimization blocked by abusing std::move also close. Somehow
I had feeling that I saw something similar from gcc in pre-C++11 times.
Regarding sample:
struct X {
X() { }
X(const X&)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67906
--- Comment #8 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Kinda related: PR 86981
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67906
--- Comment #7 from Jonathan Wakely ---
I don't think this is a useful enhancement request as currently written.
What are the precise semantics of the new warning that you want? Which cases
should warn, and which should not?
"std::move with no
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67906
--- Comment #6 from Eric Gallager ---
On 8/24/17, Mykola Orliuk wrote:
> Hello
>
> Sure,
>
> struct Value {
> Value();
> Value(const Value&);
> Value(Value&&);
> };
>
> struct Frame {
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67906
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |NEW
--- Comment #5 from Eric Gallager
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67906
--- Comment #4 from Nikolay Orliuk ---
Hello
Sure,
struct Value {
Value();
Value(const Value&);
Value(Value&&);
};
struct Frame {
Value value; // previously mutable
};
Frame top;
const
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67906
--- Comment #3 from Nikolay Orliuk ---
Sure,
struct Value {
Value();
Value(const Value&);
Value(Value&&);
};
struct Frame {
Value value; // previously mutable
};
Frame top;
const Frame&
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67906
--- Comment #2 from Nikolay Orliuk ---
Sure,
struct Value {
Value();
Value(const Value&);
Value(Value&&);
};
struct Frame {
Value value; // previously mutable
};
Frame top;
const Frame&
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67906
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
14 matches
Mail list logo