From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-bugs-return-375269-listarch-gcc-bugs=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 3670 invoked by alias); 29 Nov 2011 10:51:23 -0000
Received: (qmail 3659 invoked by uid 22791); 29 Nov 2011 10:51:22 -0000
X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.9 required=5.0	tests=ALL_TRUSTED,AWL,BAYES_00
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; Tue, 29 Nov 2011 10:51:09 +0000
From: "daniel.kruegler at googlemail dot com" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug c++/51336] [C++11] is_abstract and sfinae
Date: Tue, 29 Nov 2011 11:26:00 -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:
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: daniel.kruegler at googlemail dot com
X-Bugzilla-Status: RESOLVED
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: ---
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields:
Message-ID: <bug-51336-4-CPsA9MDhrP@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-51336-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-51336-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
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: <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: 2011-11/txt/msg02765.txt.bz2

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D51336

--- Comment #7 from Daniel Kr=C3=BCgler <daniel.kruegler at googlemail dot =
com> 2011-11-29 10:50:37 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #5)
> All right, now the is_abstract behavior is settled, do you think the fixe=
d code
> provided by Daniel in comment #1 should produce a warning, since the
> declaration is absolutely useless (I may be missing something)?=20

IMO a warning could be very useful here (at least in circumstances where the
constructor is never reachable).

> Or maybe there are legitimate meta-programming tricks I am not thinking o=
f that=20
> would turn regular constructors into pseudo copy constructors to disable =
them?

While it seems that the current defect in regard to concept-constrained mem=
ber
functions mentioned in c++std-core-20783 is a defect, so that

template<ObjectType T>
class A {
 requires SomeConcept<T>
 A(const A&) {}
};

is *intended* to work, I currently see no such chance for sfinae-constrained
special-member functions - unless the new temploid nomenclature shows that =
in

template<class T>
struct A {
  template<class U =3D T, class =3D typename
    std::enable_if<std::is_same<U, int>::value>::type
  >
  A(A const&){}
};

A<T>::A(A const&) is considered as a temploid as well. I stay tuned to see =
how
"temploids" will be defined...

Your suggested addition of a copy-constructor to non-const is surely useful=
 in
some cases, but I think the emulation is imperfect. Just consider that you =
try
to copy from a source that is not const.