blob: 68575ca13690a5d78681c56f1d03330c23f614f5 (
plain)
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" }
|
