[Bug c++/18000] New: g++ interprets a variable declaration as a function prototype when the arguments to the constructor are temporaries

2004-10-14 Thread schveiguy at yahoo dot com
Platform: x86 (Pentium 4 2.8 GHz with MT)

The following code does not compile, it appears that g++ is interpreting the 
declaration of myvar to be a function prototype:

[EMAIL PROTECTED]:~> g++3.4.2 -v
Reading specs from /usr/local/lib/gcc/i686-pc-linux-gnu/3.4.2/specs
Configured with: ./configure --program-suffix=3.4.2
Thread model: posix
gcc version 3.4.2
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:~> g++3.4.2 -Wall -o testcpp testcpp.cpp
testcpp.cpp: In function `int main(int, char**)':
testcpp.cpp:19: error: request for member `m' in `myvar', which is of non-class
type `x ()(y)'
testcpp.cpp:17: warning: unused variable 'v'
testcpp.cpp:19: warning: unused variable 'v2'
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:~>

The code:

class y
{
public:
y(int n) : n(n) {}
int n;
};

class x
{
public:
x(y m) : m(m) {}
y m;
};

int main(int argc, char *argv[])
{
int v = 1;
x myvar(y(v));
int v2 = myvar.m.n;
}

-- 
   Summary: g++ interprets a variable declaration as a function
prototype when the arguments to the constructor are
temporaries
   Product: gcc
   Version: 3.4.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
  Severity: normal
  Priority: P2
 Component: c++
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: schveiguy at yahoo dot com
CC: gcc-bugs at gcc dot gnu dot org


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18000


[Bug c++/18000] g++ interprets a variable declaration as a function prototype when the arguments to the constructor are temporaries

2004-10-14 Thread schveiguy at yahoo dot com

--- Additional Comments From schveiguy at yahoo dot com  2004-10-14 19:51 ---
(In reply to comment #1)
> This is correct behaviour. [8.2]

whoops!  I'll be damned.  It doesn't seem like it should be proper behavior :) 
sorry.  Thanks for the quick reply.

If anyone reads this bug, and has a similar problem, the fix for the code 
above is to change the line to:

x myvar = x(y(v));

-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18000