[C++ PATCH, RFC] PR c++/63959, continued

Jason Merrill jason@redhat.com
Tue Mar 10 02:49:00 GMT 2015


On 03/06/2015 06:03 PM, Ville Voutilainen wrote:
> So.. just to clarify that we're on the same page.. making volatile-qualified
> types non-trivially copyable is ok, but making wrappers of volatile-qualified
> types non-trivially copyable is not ok? That's easily doable implementation-wise,
> but it makes me question the overall approach and its consistency.

Indeed.  This is a question for CWG; we may want to reconsider the first 
point as well.

> Is there a way to indicate that from the point of C++ a type is not trivially
> copyable without changing the "complexness" of a copy operation,
> ultimately without changing ABI?

There are various hacks I can imagine, but I think I'd prefer to resolve 
the standard issue before trying to implement it.

Jason



More information about the Gcc-patches mailing list