------- Comment #36 from mark at codesourcery dot com 2008-01-08 03:39 -------
Subject: Re: [4.2/4.3 regression] ICE with incompatible types
for ?: with "complex type" conversion
gdr at cs dot tamu dot edu wrote:
> | (Both have
> | values unrepresentable in the other, of course.) Would you please give
> | an example of how this change, together with the new constructors, would
> | make some program behave differently than the standard says it should?
>
> Please see the details in the proposal put foward by BS, me, and JSA titled
> `initializer list' (post Toronto meeting), and the recent `rationale'
> paper by BS in the mid-term mailing. Look for the section or word
> `narrowing'.
I don't know where to find those things, unfortunately. Do you have a URL?
Would you please provide an example of how:
complex<float> {
Complex (int i) : real_(i) {};
Complex (float f): real_f() {};
float real_;
float imag_;
};
would be different than just:
complex<float> {
Complex (float f): real_f() {};
float real_;
float imag_;
};
when passed an "int"? I'm having a hard time seeing how making the
conversion in the constructor would be different than making it at the
call site, whether or not the argument is a constant.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31780
