http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54293
--- Comment #10 from Jiří Paleček <jpalecek at web dot de> 2012-08-21 07:51:55 UTC --- (In reply to comment #9) > (In reply to comment #8) > > > I agree with your analysis, but would like to point out that there is > > > change > > > planned to essentially this part of the wording due to > > > > > > http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/cwg_active.html#616 > > > > > > Assuming it becomes accepted E1.E2 will become an xvalue in this case (SE > > > bullet 2 of the P/R) > > > > Thanks for the info, it is interesting (although I can't see the relevance > > of > > this particular change to the issues it should solve, which are basically > > about > > using uninitialized objects). > > Well, this addition *would* change the expected outcome. Because given the CWG > 616 P/R the expression > > ValueHolder<int>().v > > becomes an xvalue (The special rule about class rvalues is no longer relevant > here), this means that the compiler shall *not* copy-initialize a temporary as > described in the very last bullet of 8.5.3/5. > > In other words: In this case IsValid(&ref_int) will hold for the same reasons > as it holds for IsValid(&ref_obj). That is true, and I didn't object that. I rather didn't understand how is that particular change related to solving issues 616, 129, 240 and some others mentioned there.
