Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> Mark Mitchell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>
>>Let's start with the simpler friend10.C. There, the "operator bool()"
>>conversion operator is irrelevant, as far as I can see. However, we
>>*should* still call the friend operator<<, because argument-dependent
>>lookup
Mark Mitchell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Let's start with the simpler friend10.C. There, the "operator bool()"
> conversion operator is irrelevant, as far as I can see. However, we
> *should* still call the friend operator<<, because argument-dependent
> lookup is explicitly defined that way.
Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> Now that my patch handles the above case correctly, the test
> g++.dg/template/friend10.C fails. And the original test case in PR
> 5116 fails.
>
> I think the issue here is whether we should prefer an explicitly
> declared conversion operator over a friend function foun
[ Redirected from gcc-patches@ to gcc@ ]
Mark Mitchell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> This case is particularly tricky because of the fact that accepting
> the invalid code also means that we'll change the meaning of some
> valid code. For example, in:
>
> int f(int) {
>return 1;
> }
>
> st
