------- Additional Comments From phenning at lanl dot gov 2005-07-21 19:16
-------
(In reply to comment #2)
> void g(void)
> {
> A_class<int> a;
> foo<A_class<int> >(a);
> }
Right, and I think that it should in that case. It seems that g++ attempts to
call the first definition
when there is usage like:
foo(something_that_returns_Aclass_int());
So, when I try to compile code that uses std::vector<int>, the compiler
generates calls to both
std::_Destroy<int*, std::allocator<int> >(int *, int*, std::allocator<int>)
and
std::_Destroy<int*, std::allocator<int>, int>(int *, int*, std::allocator<int>)
Since I can't explicitly instantiate the first form, I can't compile
std::vector code with -fno-implicit-
templates.
This could be changed by how _Destroy is implemented, but it seems strange that
I can't explicitly
instantiate a class, given that I'm providing the template parameter signature
explicitly.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22596
