In the following test code, I understand why the class is still seen as move constructable, even though the default move constructor and assignment operator would not be implicitly generated by the compiler.

Understanding based on the following from cppreference.com:

Types without a move constructor, but with a copy constructor that accepts const T& arguments, satisfy std::is_move_constructible — [Ref]

#include <type_traits>
#include <concepts>
#include <cstdbool>


struct DestructableMock {
    DestructableMock() : m_value(0x5a5a5a5a), m_output_debug(false) { }

    DestructableMock(unsigned int value) : m_value(value), m_output_debug(false) { }

    DestructableMock(unsigned int value, bool output_debug) : 
            m_value(value), m_output_debug(output_debug) {
    }
    
    ~DestructableMock() {
    }


    DestructableMock(const DestructableMock &src) {
        m_output_debug = src.m_output_debug;
        m_value = src.m_value;
    }

    //DestructableMock(DestructableMock &&src) = delete;

    DestructableMock& operator=(const DestructableMock &other) {
        if (&other != this) {
            m_value = other.m_value;
            m_output_debug = other.m_output_debug;
        }
        return *this;
    }

    unsigned int m_value;
    bool m_output_debug;
};

static_assert(!std::is_trivially_destructible_v<DestructableMock>);
static_assert(std::is_copy_constructible_v<DestructableMock>);
// Types without a move constructor, but with a copy constructor that accepts const T& arguments,
// satisfy std::is_move_constructible.
static_assert(std::is_move_constructible_v<DestructableMock>);
// But it is not trivially move constructable
static_assert(!std::is_trivially_move_constructible_v<DestructableMock>);
static_assert(std::is_move_assignable_v<DestructableMock>);
static_assert(std::is_move_assignable_v<DestructableMock>);


int main() {
    return 0;
}

See code on programiz here

So, I can understand why static_assert(std::is_move_constructible_v<DestructableMock>); passes: there is no move constructor but there is a copy constructor accepting a const reference.

However, if I uncomment the line that explicitly deletes the move constructor, the same assertion fails. Why is this? There is still the “copy constructor that accepts const T& arguments”, so why is it not seen as move constructable still?

My compiler version is gcc (Ubuntu 11.4.0-1ubuntu1~22.04) 11.4.0 btw