From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-patches-return-404168-listarch-gcc-patches=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 82498 invoked by alias); 29 Jul 2015 08:32:19 -0000
Mailing-List: contact gcc-patches-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <gcc-patches.gcc.gnu.org>
List-Archive: <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/>
List-Post: <mailto:gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gcc-patches-help@gcc.gnu.org>
Sender: gcc-patches-owner@gcc.gnu.org
Received: (qmail 82471 invoked by uid 89); 29 Jul 2015 08:32:18 -0000
Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none
X-Virus-Found: No
X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-2.1 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,KAM_LAZY_DOMAIN_SECURITY,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,SPF_HELO_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2
X-Spam-User: qpsmtpd, 2 recipients
X-HELO: mx1.redhat.com
Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with (AES256-GCM-SHA384 encrypted) ESMTPS; Wed, 29 Jul 2015 08:32:17 +0000
Received: from int-mx13.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx13.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.26])	by mx1.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 18E3319CF48;	Wed, 29 Jul 2015 08:32:16 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from localhost (ovpn-116-56.ams2.redhat.com [10.36.116.56])	by int-mx13.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id t6T8WEJo002461;	Wed, 29 Jul 2015 04:32:15 -0400
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2015 08:43:00 -0000
From: Jonathan Wakely <jwakely@redhat.com>
To: Tim Shen <timshen@google.com>
Cc: libstdc++ <libstdc++@gcc.gnu.org>, gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: Re: [Patch] Small refactor on <regex> _State<>
Message-ID: <20150729083214.GB13355@redhat.com>
References: <CAG4ZjNnYLoCYnjNpkJYHa2Q-ux0KnKmVXBDUOa33xk29MzeTKA@mail.gmail.com> <20150725153121.GW21787@redhat.com> <CAG4ZjNnvm=QAwihOUvMLtOezYprtasaJOY3i-MhJV0Tf4z5mpg@mail.gmail.com> <20150728151925.GO10878@redhat.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20150728151925.GO10878@redhat.com>
X-Clacks-Overhead: GNU Terry Pratchett
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12)
X-SW-Source: 2015-07/txt/msg02429.txt.bz2

On 28/07/15 16:19 +0100, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
>What I'm concerned about is assignment. You haven't defined an
>assignment operator. If there's an unwanted assignment we could get
>undefined behaviour. Please delete the assignment operator if it's not
>needed.

Apologies, you have a user-declared move constructor, so assignment is
already deleted. It wouldn't hurt to make that explicit though:

  _State& operator=(const _State&) = delete;

So it's just the alignment issue that I'm concerned about now.