------- Comment #7 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2008-10-13 17:13
-------
(In reply to comment #6)
> Then I'm hopelessly confused. It's clear that my report and the example in
> DR109 are the same problem. You say: "The example in DR 109 does *not* compile
> if the additional operator() are not added and does when the resolution of DR
> 109 is implemented." That makes sense - with the addition of the overload my
> example will compile too. So it appears that gcc (at least 4.3.1) does *not*
> implement DR109.
No!!!! It does *exactly* implement the DR, it SIMPLY adds the two operator().
Your problem is totally different, has to do with the obnoxious reference to
reference issue, which plagued C++03. The overloads are already there, check
again in the code of the library, but are there to fix a completely different
issue, that reported in DR 109, which has to do with non-const members.
Please, do not re-open PR at your will. This issue is absolutely clear to the
maintainers of the library and nobody (I repeat nobody) will take any further
real action, irrespective of you reopening it or not.
--
paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution| |INVALID
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37811
