File: implicit8.C

package info (click to toggle)
gcc-arm-none-eabi 15%3A7-2018-q2-5
  • links: PTS, VCS
  • area: main
  • in suites: buster
  • size: 539,188 kB
  • sloc: ansic: 2,739,935; cpp: 848,238; ada: 602,637; makefile: 62,919; asm: 55,635; xml: 46,238; exp: 23,020; sh: 19,616; python: 6,371; pascal: 3,889; awk: 3,278; perl: 2,691; yacc: 316; ml: 285; f90: 234; lex: 198; objc: 194; haskell: 119
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" }