This is the mail archive of the gcc@gcc.gnu.org mailing list for the GCC project.

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format:	[Raw text]

Re: [c++0x] cannot return a constant

From: Gabriel Dos Reis <gdr at integrable-solutions dot net>
To: Roman Kononov <roman at binarylife dot net>
Cc: Jonathan Wakely <jwakely dot gcc at gmail dot com>, gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org
Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2010 15:12:06 -0600
Subject: Re: [c++0x] cannot return a constant
References: <20101130143334.1b3f172b@abend.internal.xtremedata.com> <AANLkTi=R+dt8MVJhSZUUhJsyATi_qfjRnv5qFd9TA5pK@mail.gmail.com> <AANLkTikOqWkJ+=ozKtOkkiRP88Rfo6a92Q0W5h3FtpFB@mail.gmail.com> <20101130150256.623d44ce@abend.internal.xtremedata.com>

On Tue, Nov 30, 2010 at 3:02 PM, Roman Kononov <roman@binarylife.net> wrote:

>>2) define a copy constructor, explicitly-defaulted if you wish.
>
> What if the copy constructor is too expensive and I have to use move
> constructor?

the discussion would be less confused if you identify clearly the
language semantics (as currently present in the C++0x WD) that
g++ gets wrong.

References:
- [c++0x] cannot return a constant
  - From: Roman Kononov
- Re: [c++0x] cannot return a constant
  - From: Jonathan Wakely
- Re: [c++0x] cannot return a constant
  - From: Jonathan Wakely
- Re: [c++0x] cannot return a constant
  - From: Roman Kononov

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]