From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-bugs-return-335267-listarch-gcc-bugs=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 13319 invoked by alias); 1 Nov 2010 00:15:50 -0000
Received: (qmail 13304 invoked by uid 22791); 1 Nov 2010 00:15:47 -0000
X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.4 required=5.0	tests=ALL_TRUSTED,AWL,BAYES_00,MISSING_MID
X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org
Received: from localhost (HELO gcc.gnu.org) (127.0.0.1)    by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Mon, 01 Nov 2010 00:15:43 +0000
From: "redi at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug c++/46246] [C++0x] Move constructor required when passing a temporary by copy, but not actually used
X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC
X-Bugzilla-Type: changed
X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None
X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc
X-Bugzilla-Component: c++
X-Bugzilla-Keywords:
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: redi at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Status: UNCONFIRMED
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: ---
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields:
In-Reply-To: <bug-46246-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-46246-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Date: Mon, 01 Nov 2010 00:15:00 -0000
Mailing-List: contact gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <gcc-bugs.gcc.gnu.org>
List-Archive: <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-bugs/>
List-Post: <mailto:gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org>
Sender: gcc-bugs-owner@gcc.gnu.org
X-SW-Source: 2010-11/txt/msg00000.txt.bz2
Message-ID: <20101101001500.evwpDGhktfvEdQdkqIHkSGZ7HQFjBVEUrnKxDtyxaG0@z>

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46246

--- Comment #7 from Jonathan Wakely <redi at gcc dot gnu.org> 2010-11-01 00:15:33 UTC ---
No, a deleted function can still be selected by overload resolution. Defining a
move constructor as deleted does not have the semantics you want.

In the current draft, n3126, a user-declared copy constructor suppresses the
implicit declaration of a move constructor.  So all you need to do to make a
class copyable but not movable is declare the copy constructor.  Don't declare
a move constructor, definitely don't define it as deleted.


$ cat foo.cpp
#include <iostream>

using namespace std;

class Bar
{
public:
        Bar()
        {
                cout << "default bar" << endl;
        }
        Bar(const Bar& r)
        {
                cout << "copy bar" << endl;
        }
};

void foo(Bar p)
{
        cout << "foo called" << endl;
}

int main()
{
        foo(Bar());
        return 0;
}
$ g++ -std=c++0x foo.cpp -fno-elide-constructors
$ ./a.out
default bar
copy bar
foo called