[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