From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 20967 invoked by alias); 28 Nov 2011 21:18:05 -0000 Received: (qmail 20943 invoked by uid 22791); 28 Nov 2011 21:18:04 -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; Mon, 28 Nov 2011 21:17:50 +0000 From: "marc.glisse at normalesup dot org" To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug c++/51336] [C++11] is_abstract and sfinae Date: Mon, 28 Nov 2011 21:49:00 -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: marc.glisse at normalesup dot org X-Bugzilla-Status: UNCONFIRMED 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" 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: 2011-11/txt/msg02711.txt.bz2 http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51336 --- Comment #2 from Marc Glisse 2011-11-28 21:17:30 UTC --- (In reply to comment #1) > IMO you need one further indirection, e.g. Ah, yes, makes sense (although clang accepts both versions). > Btw.: Neither of these forms can ever prevent the "real" copy constructor to be > declared, defined, and used by the compiler. I was experimenting with it because I don't understand why this code (your fixed version) is valid if that declaration has no effect... (well, it does remove the implicit A(), but that doesn't count) Maybe I should ask for a warning?