https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119916
--- Comment #16 from Jason Merrill <jason at gcc dot gnu.org> --- (In reply to Iain Sandoe from comment #15) > hmm .. EWG does seem to iterate at times ... maybe I can reach out to Lewis > for the example (and to ask him how Ville's request is intended to be > handled). This got discussed in some depth during the work on coroutines + > contracts (and I thought we had agreement, apparently incorrectly) My revision of Gor's proposed wording (https://wiki.edg.com/pub/Wg21telecons2025/CoreWorkingGroup/2563.html) requires NRVO when eligible (i.e. same type ignoring cv-quals); isn't that sufficient for Ville's request? If a conversion is needed, the connection is broken anyway. > In the meantime, perhaps it would be enough to revert the "fix" for PR115908 > (and presumably mark that as INVALID?) - or do you have other thoughts? I think that would be a good start, but the reversion seems to be significantly complicated by other changes to that function.
