From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: by sourceware.org (Postfix, from userid 48)
	id 51A473858407; Sat,  5 Nov 2022 05:27:30 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 51A473858407
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org;
	s=default; t=1667626068;
	bh=6GkkCwYezn0xHoP5FWy5Bz2kgykYl4vwk/pRxwsyTUA=;
	h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From;
	b=JCL/AXn+qPhMJfTi4KFXw59X1PUHHRukcwnw6HdirZQHk3wawQeR45zAA96b06OkY
	 qteOsPCxO9++CgBgN5GWGRXecrpE8CG/0UFoJ78B0kOdEwch9HYeDV8Wcrv8POJ9dh
	 gng5rSMJH1zBlSgxtdvHpP2tYRKamt1BCf2nt7zA=
From: "nightstrike at gmail dot com" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug c++/107531] List of references calls destructors, add warning?
Date: Sat, 05 Nov 2022 05:27:29 +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: 12.2.0
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: 
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: nightstrike at gmail dot com
X-Bugzilla-Status: UNCONFIRMED
X-Bugzilla-Resolution: 
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: 
Message-ID: <bug-107531-4-QWxGqHZO7w@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-107531-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-107531-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
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: <gcc-bugs.sourceware.org>

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D107531

--- Comment #2 from nightstrike <nightstrike at gmail dot com> ---
It looks like you're right.  The root cause of the problem is that in my
non-reduced case, I didn't have a copy constructor, but I had a non-default
destructor that was releasing resources twice.  So it's clearly my fault, I
just kind of hoped the compiler could be a little more omniscient :)

If a warning is not really possible here, then I guess this could be "closed
invalid".  Or maybe there are already PR's open to request a warning to rem=
ind
you that you did something requiring a non-default copy constructor?=