------- Comment #5 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-10-01 20:33 -------
(In reply to comment #3)
> Plesae seee Comment #2 From Kelvin 2006-09-28 23:25 [reply].
>
> In addition 2 questions I raised in the Commet2. I also have one more
> question
> about the rule "bind an rvalue to a reference,
> we need to let copy ctor of the class be accessible.", I found that this rule
> only effective when the reference is delcared as "const &", but if we remove
> keyword "const", then "no matching" happen again.
Because it will not be a copy constructor that can bind a rvalue to a reference
at that point so this is still not a bug.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution| |INVALID
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29266
