I had posted this on the user's list but I think this should be brought to
the attention of the developers. The following code contains a templated
copy constructible Boost.Move enabled class (Bar) with a single non-copy
constructible Boost.Enabled member (Foo). If Bar's copy constructor is not
explicitly defined then the code compiles with both g++ 4.8.2 and VS2005,
else if it's explicitly defined then it fails to compile on g++ 4.8.2 I
think this is due to the fact that g++ 4.8.2 erroneously instantiates
Bar's default copy constructor in the latter case. Is this a Boost.Move
bug or a gcc bug?
#include
#include
struct Foo
{
Foo(int x, int y)
{}
Foo(BOOST_RV_REF(Foo) rhs)
{}
private:
//Purposefully declared and not defined.
Foo & operator=(Foo);
private:
BOOST_MOVABLE_BUT_NOT_COPYABLE(Foo)
};
template <typename T>
struct Bar
{
Bar()
: f(0, 1)
{}
// (1)
//Bar(Bar const & rhs)
//: f(rhs.f)
//{}
Bar(BOOST_RV_REF(Bar) rhs)
: f(::boost::move(rhs.f))
{}
private:
//Purposefully declared and not defined.
Bar & operator=(Bar);
private:
BOOST_COPYABLE_AND_MOVABLE(Bar)
private:
T f;
};
Foo f1()
{
return Foo(0, 1);
}
Bar<Foo> f2()
{
return Bar<Foo>();
}
int main()
{
// Foo f( f1() );
Bar<Foo> b(( Bar<Foo>() ));
// Bar<Foo> b1;
// Bar<Foo> b2(b1);
return 0;
}
