Consider the following code:
#include
struct Thing
{
Thing(void) {std::cout << __PRETTY_FUNCTION__ <<
-
It doesn't make an ill-formed program build. It gets rid of the reference to the deleted function entirely. The appropriate wording in the proposal is here:
[dcl.init] bullet 17.6
If the initializer expression is a prvalue and the cv-unqualified
version of the source type is the same class as the class of the
destination, the initializer expression is used to initialize the
destination object. [ Example: T x = T(T(T())); calls the T default
constructor to initialize x. ]
The example further strengthens this. Since it indicates the whole expression must collapse into a single default construction.
The thing to note is that the deleted function is never odr-used when the copies are elided due to value categories, so the program is not referring to it.
This is an important distinction, since the other form of copy elision still odr-uses the copy c'tor, as described here:
[basic.def.odr]/3
... A constructor selected to copy or move an object of class type is
odr-used even if the call is actually elided by the implementation
([class.copy] ...
[class.copy] describes the other form of permissible (but not mandatory) copy-elision. Which, if we demonstrate with your class:
Thing foo() {
Thing t;
return t; // Can be elided according to [class.copy.elision] still odr-used
}
Should make the program ill-formed. And GCC complains about it as expected.
And by the way. If you think the previous example in the online compiler is a magicians trick, and GCC complains because it needs to call the move c'tor. Have a look at what happens when we supply a definition.
讨论(0)
- 热议问题