// 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 *-*-* } }