[Bug c++/46145] [C++0x] Should defaulted copy constructor imply default move constructor?

jason at gcc dot gnu.org gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org
Thu May 26 17:10:00 GMT 2011

Previous message (by thread): [Bug c++/46145] [C++0x] Should defaulted copy constructor imply default move constructor?
Next message (by thread): [Bug c++/46005] [C++0x] Don't allow "auto" as the simple-type-specifier of a typedef
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46145

--- Comment #6 from Jason Merrill <jason at gcc dot gnu.org> 2011-05-26 17:02:14 UTC ---
Oops, those patches were really for bug 46005.

Previous message (by thread): [Bug c++/46145] [C++0x] Should defaulted copy constructor imply default move constructor?
Next message (by thread): [Bug c++/46005] [C++0x] Don't allow "auto" as the simple-type-specifier of a typedef
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

More information about the Gcc-bugs mailing list