obtained gcc-4.6.4.tar.bz2 from upstream website;upstream

verified gcc-4.6.4.tar.bz2.sig;
imported gcc-4.6.4 source tree from verified upstream tarball.

downloading a git-generated archive based on the 'upstream' tag
should provide you with a source tree that is binary identical
to the one extracted from the above tarball.

if you have obtained the source via the command 'git clone',
however, do note that line-endings of files in your working
directory might differ from line-endings of the respective
files in the upstream repository.

1 files changed, 34 insertions, 0 deletions

diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/cpp0x/implicit8.C b/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/cpp0x/implicit8.C
new file mode 100644
index 000000000..2f3febae8
--- /dev/null
+++ b/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/cpp0x/implicit8.C
@@ -0,0 +1,34 @@
+// The hack for PR c++/44909 breaks this testcase.  We need feedback
+// from the C++ committee to know how to proceed.
+// { dg-options -std=c++0x }
+// { dg-prune-output "implicitly deleted" }
+// { dg-prune-output "cannot bind" }
+// { dg-prune-output "initializing argument" }
+
+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?
+struct C: A, B { };
+
+C c;
+C c2(c);			// { dg-bogus "deleted" "" { xfail *-*-* } }