From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 18846 invoked by alias); 16 Apr 2012 10:54:46 -0000 Received: (qmail 18837 invoked by uid 22791); 16 Apr 2012 10:54:46 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-4.3 required=5.0 tests=ALL_TRUSTED,AWL,BAYES_00,KHOP_THREADED 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, 16 Apr 2012 10:54:33 +0000 From: "manu at gcc dot gnu.org" To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug c++/39728] diagnostic for private operator= is voluminous and unhelpful Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2012 10:54:00 -0000 X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC X-Bugzilla-Type: changed X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc X-Bugzilla-Component: c++ X-Bugzilla-Keywords: diagnostic X-Bugzilla-Severity: enhancement X-Bugzilla-Who: manu at gcc dot gnu.org X-Bugzilla-Status: NEW X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3 X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: --- X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: Message-ID: In-Reply-To: References: X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/ Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Mailing-List: contact gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-bugs-owner@gcc.gnu.org X-SW-Source: 2012-04/txt/msg01271.txt.bz2 http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D39728 --- Comment #4 from Manuel L=C3=B3pez-Ib=C3=A1=C3=B1ez 2012-04-16 10:53:50 UTC --- (In reply to comment #3) > Every C++ programmer knows that the compiler implicitly defines special m= ember > functions, including the copy-assignment operator but I don't really like= the > terminology. C++ doesn't have methods, it has member functions, and the f= ormal > term in the standard is "implicitly-defined" not synthesized. Indeed. I would consider obvious to do: sed -i 's/synthesized method/implicitly-defined member function/g' cp/*.c cp/*.h Would Jason pre-approve such a patch? It doesn't fix the actual verbose output Ian is complaining about, but it i= s a small positive step.