From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: by sourceware.org (Postfix, from userid 48) id BBD203851C0A; Tue, 26 Jan 2021 19:38:53 +0000 (GMT) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org BBD203851C0A From: "msebor at gcc dot gnu.org" To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug c++/98835] False positive -Wclass-memaccess with class with ref-qualified copy-assignment operator Date: Tue, 26 Jan 2021 19:38:53 +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: unknown X-Bugzilla-Keywords: diagnostic X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal X-Bugzilla-Who: msebor at gcc dot gnu.org X-Bugzilla-Status: RESOLVED X-Bugzilla-Resolution: INVALID 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: bug_status keywords cc resolution Message-ID: In-Reply-To: References: 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 X-BeenThere: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Gcc-bugs mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 26 Jan 2021 19:38:53 -0000 https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D98835 Martin Sebor changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Keywords| |diagnostic CC| |msebor at gcc dot gnu.org Resolution|--- |INVALID --- Comment #1 from Martin Sebor --- The warning is issued on the basis that the left-hand operand of Bad's assignment cannot be a temporary. I.e., that this isn't valid: Bad() =3D B= ad().=20 In the modified test case below the warning detects the memcpy call bypassi= ng the constraint the assignment operator puts on assigning to objects of the class. So unless there's a compelling use case showing otherwise I'm incli= ned to say the warning is justified and helpful here (its wording shouldn't be expected to perfectly reflect all the subtleties involved in the decision).= =20 There isn't a test case for this in the test suite so let me add this one. class Bad { public: Bad* operator& () { return this; } Bad & operator=3D(Bad const &) & =3D default; }; template void test() { static_assert (__has_trivial_copy (T)); // T () =3D T (); // error memcpy (&T (), &T (), sizeof(T)); // warning } int main() { test(); }=