File: implicit8.C

package info (click to toggle)
gcc-riscv64-unknown-elf 8.3.0.2019.08%2Bdfsg-1
  • links: PTS, VCS
  • area: main
  • in suites: bullseye
  • size: 680,956 kB
  • sloc: ansic: 3,237,715; cpp: 896,882; ada: 772,854; f90: 144,254; asm: 68,788; makefile: 67,456; sh: 29,743; exp: 28,045; objc: 15,273; fortran: 11,885; python: 7,369; pascal: 5,375; awk: 3,725; perl: 2,872; yacc: 316; xml: 311; ml: 285; lex: 198; haskell: 122
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" }