http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51336
--- Comment #2 from Marc Glisse <marc.glisse at normalesup dot org> 2011-11-28 21:17:30 UTC --- (In reply to comment #1) > IMO you need one further indirection, e.g. Ah, yes, makes sense (although clang accepts both versions). > Btw.: Neither of these forms can ever prevent the "real" copy constructor to > be > declared, defined, and used by the compiler. I was experimenting with it because I don't understand why this code (your fixed version) is valid if that declaration has no effect... (well, it does remove the implicit A(), but that doesn't count) Maybe I should ask for a warning?
