http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57977
--- Comment #3 from Daniel Santos ---
Hmm, I guess it's actually the copy assignment operator. Either way, it makes
sense if the const union member was "real", in this case, the copy assignment
for this member would be a no-op (were we to copy it
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57977
--- Comment #2 from Daniel Santos ---
Don't you mean the part which prohibits its creation?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57977
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
It is not the zero length which is causing the copy constructor to be created
but rather the const part which causes the copy constructor to happen.
