From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: by sourceware.org (Postfix, from userid 48) id 008F33858CDA; Wed, 29 Nov 2023 04:53:23 +0000 (GMT) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 008F33858CDA DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org; s=default; t=1701233604; bh=N+8tlM8ZFu5XOvtT+3OCtqXujZ2sdoE2dQQxaxa18Qg=; h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=NHsPcRJnruAixkZcbFeaEDaS0qMTm6uyZCl79Kky6Hf4J89UvIkkssPI1SJH9/OMB YpX9P7mNWMf/fUy6Mj7m/v2WwP9BqAFuPVdvDtYtfTR8kt4BW0KAEnABd9ELKFZYhN W4AOCaKZ6QFVThpWfF1z9WHJ0+4pyf8iTMEB9p8s= From: "gcc at nospam dot scs.stanford.edu" To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug c++/101113] g++ thinks constructor suppressed by a requires clause is actually a bad copy constructor Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2023 04:53:22 +0000 X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC X-Bugzilla-Type: changed X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc X-Bugzilla-Component: c++ X-Bugzilla-Version: 11.1.0 X-Bugzilla-Keywords: rejects-valid X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal X-Bugzilla-Who: gcc at nospam dot scs.stanford.edu X-Bugzilla-Status: RESOLVED X-Bugzilla-Resolution: INVALID X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3 X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: --- X-Bugzilla-Flags: X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: bug_status resolution Message-ID: In-Reply-To: References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/ Auto-Submitted: auto-generated MIME-Version: 1.0 List-Id: https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D101113 David Mazi=C3=A8res changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution|--- |INVALID --- Comment #4 from David Mazi=C3=A8res --- Sorry I should have closed this bug report a while ago when I said it wasn'= t a bug.=