public inbox for gcc-bugs@sourceware.org
help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "h2+bugs at fsfe dot org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug c++/107202] New: inheriting assignment operators from CRTP-base
Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2022 19:32:00 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <bug-107202-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/> (raw)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107202

            Bug ID: 107202
           Summary: inheriting assignment operators from CRTP-base
           Product: gcc
           Version: unknown
            Status: UNCONFIRMED
          Severity: normal
          Priority: P3
         Component: c++
          Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
          Reporter: h2+bugs at fsfe dot org
  Target Milestone: ---

I stumbled over the following:


```cpp
#define OPTION 0 // or 1-4

template <typename Derived>
struct Base
{
    Base() = default;
    Base(Base const &) = default;
    Base(Base &&) = default;
    //Base & operator=(Base const &) = delete;
    //Base & operator=(Base &&) = delete;

#if OPTION == 1
    Derived const & operator=(Derived &)
    {
        return static_cast<Derived &>(*this);
    }
#elif OPTION == 2
    Derived const & operator=(Derived &) const
    {
        return static_cast<Derived &>(*this);
    }
#elif OPTION == 3
    Derived const & operator=(Derived const &)
    {
        return static_cast<Derived &>(*this);
    }
#elif OPTION == 4
    Derived const & operator=(Derived const &) const
    {
        return static_cast<Derived &>(*this);
    }
#endif
};

struct D : Base<D>
{
    D() = default;
    D(D const &) = default;
    D(D &&) = default;
    //D & operator=(D const &) = delete;
    //D & operator=(D &&) = delete;

    using Base<D>::operator=;
};

int main()
{
    D d1;
    D d2;
    d1 = d2;
}
```


OPTION == 0 → no valid overload (expected!)
OPTION == 1 → well-formed
OPTION == 2 → ambiguous overload
OPTION == 3 → no valid overload
OPTION == 4 → no valid overload

Clang behaves the same as GCC. MSVC never sees any valid overloads.

My assumption was that implicit assignment operators are inhibited in all cases
(this is also shown by OPTION == 0), but that any of the inherited operators
should be valid. Should the implicit deletion of the assignment-operator in D
prevent inheriting the user-defined assignment operators from Base, why does
this affect some of them and not others?

                 reply	other threads:[~2022-10-10 19:32 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: [no followups] expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=bug-107202-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/ \
    --to=gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org \
    --cc=gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).