1 files changed, 32 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/gcc-4.9/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/cpp0x/implicit8.C b/gcc-4.9/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/cpp0x/implicit8.C
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..68575ca
--- /dev/null
+++ b/gcc-4.9/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/cpp0x/implicit8.C
@@ -0,0 +1,32 @@
+// The hack for PR c++/44909 breaks this testcase.  We need feedback
+// from the C++ committee to know how to proceed.
+// { dg-do compile { target c++11 } }
+
+struct A
+{
+  A();
+  A(A&);
+};
+
+struct B;
+struct BP
+{
+  BP(const B&);
+};
+
+struct B
+{
+  B();
+  B(B&&);
+  B(const BP&);
+};
+
+// If B(B&&) suppresses the B copy constructor, then copying the B
+// subobject of C should use B(const BP&).  But we ignore that constructor
+// in order to break the cycle in 44909.  Perhaps the move ctor shouldn't
+// suppress the copy ctor?
+// As of DR 1082, it doesn't suppress it.
+struct C: A, B { };		// { dg-error "use of deleted" }
+
+C c;
+C c2(c);			// { dg-error "deleted" }