blob: 2f3febae8b2a61c2ebde744fa321d92c2ff8f34c (
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
33
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 *-*-* } }
|
