[move] Movable but not copyable bug?
Given the following code, if (1) is uncommented then it fails to compile
under C++03 mode yet works in C++11 mode. If commented out, then it
compiles successfully under both modes. (g++ 4.8.2 is being used) Is this
behavior expected or a bug?
#include
On Sat, 23 Aug 2014 17:55:06 -0700, Mostafa
Given the following code, if (1) is uncommented then it fails to compile under C++03 mode yet works in C++11 mode. If commented out, then it compiles successfully under both modes. (g++ 4.8.2 is being used) Is this behavior expected or a bug?
FWIW, both scenarios compile in VS2005. It seems gcc is unnecessarily instantiating (in function f2) the copy ctor for Bar<Foo> whenever that ctor is explicitly defined. Is this a gcc bug?
El 24/08/2014 2:55, Mostafa escribió:
Given the following code, if (1) is uncommented then it fails to compile under C++03 mode yet works in C++11 mode. If commented out, then it compiles successfully under both modes. (g++ 4.8.2 is being used) Is this behavior expected or a bug?
private: //Purposefully declared and not defined. Foo & operator=(Foo);
BOOST_MOVABLE_BUT_NOT_COPYABLE(Foo) already makes copy assignment private. See Boost.Move documentation. Returning by value requires CopyConstructible in C++03 compilers. If you declare that operation in Bar, then the compiler will use it. If you leave it out, Boost.Move magic will make moveable-only objects returnable by value. I think that you need BOOST_MOVE_RET to obtain portable behaviour: http://www.boost.org/doc/libs/1_56_0/doc/html/BOOST_MOVE_RET.html Best, Ion
participants (2)
-
Ion Gaztañaga
-
Mostafa