File: implicit8.C

package info (click to toggle)
gcc-arm-none-eabi 15%3A14.2.rel1-1
  • links: PTS, VCS
  • area: main
  • in suites: forky, sid, trixie
  • size: 1,099,328 kB
  • sloc: cpp: 3,627,108; ansic: 2,571,498; ada: 834,230; f90: 235,082; makefile: 79,231; asm: 74,984; xml: 51,692; exp: 39,736; sh: 33,298; objc: 15,629; python: 15,069; fortran: 14,429; pascal: 7,003; awk: 5,070; perl: 3,106; ml: 285; lisp: 253; lex: 204; haskell: 135
file content (32 lines) | stat: -rw-r--r-- 661 bytes parent folder | download | duplicates (10) 
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
 
// The hack for PR c++/44909 breaks this testcase.  We need feedback
// from the C++ committee to know how to proceed.
// { dg-do compile { target c++11 } }

struct A
{
  A();
  A(A&);
};

struct B;
struct BP
{
  BP(const B&);
};

struct B
{
  B();
  B(B&&);
  B(const BP&);
};

// If B(B&&) suppresses the B copy constructor, then copying the B
// subobject of C should use B(const BP&).  But we ignore that constructor
// in order to break the cycle in 44909.  Perhaps the move ctor shouldn't
// suppress the copy ctor?
// As of DR 1082, it doesn't suppress it.
struct C: A, B { };		// { dg-error "use of deleted" }

C c;
C c2(c);			// { dg-error "deleted" }