[Bug c++/37898] aggregates vs. defaulted deleted functions

2008-12-03 Thread bkoz at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #3 from bkoz at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-12-04 03:46 --- FYI removing the deleted copy constructor does indeed make this an aggregate. So: struct test_type { int i; test_type() = default; ~test_type() = default; test_type& operator=(const test_type&) = delete; };

[Bug c++/37898] aggregates vs. defaulted deleted functions

2008-12-03 Thread bkoz at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #2 from bkoz at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-12-04 03:41 --- Yes, the default ctor is explicitly defaulted, but the copy ctor is an (explicitly) deleted function. Deleted functions are user-defined. Thus, this is not an aggregate. -- bkoz at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:

[Bug c++/37898] aggregates vs. defaulted deleted functions

2008-10-22 Thread bkoz at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #1 from bkoz at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-10-22 22:59 --- Breaking these out to separate bugs -- bkoz at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What|Removed |Added