On Fri, Feb 19, 2016 at 11:03 AM, Matthijs van Duin
<matthijsvand...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 19 February 2016 at 14:35, Michael Matz <m...@suse.de> wrote:
>> struct S {
>> S() {something();}
>> };
>>
>> would be an empty type, and that's not what we want.
>
> Why not? The default constructor is never invoked as part of passing
> such an object around. Its copy constructor is a nop and requires no
> reference to the original object.
>
Do you have a precise wording to describe it?
--
H.J.
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
