https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32658
Nathan Sidwell changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32658
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|gcc-bugs at gcc dot gnu.org |
--- Comment #11 from Paolo Carlini 2012
--- Comment #10 from aribrei at arcor dot de 2007-08-02 18:39 ---
(In reply to comment #9)
> See also:
>
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29939
>
> So it seems you should be able to play with it now.
>
Unfortunately, I have to support older GCC version (like 4.0 and 4.1
--- Comment #9 from widman at gimpel dot com 2007-08-02 17:17 ---
See also:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29939
So it seems you should be able to play with it now.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32658
--- Comment #8 from widman at gimpel dot com 2007-08-02 17:07 ---
(In reply to comment #7)
> (In reply to comment #6)
> > Is it possible that rvalue references will give you an alternative for the
> > desired effect? See the relevant papers linked to from here:
> >
> > http://open-std
--- Comment #7 from aribrei at arcor dot de 2007-08-02 16:34 ---
(In reply to comment #6)
> (In reply to comment #4)
> > I should note that I do NOT want to see this bug fixed. I would prefer to
> > hear
> > that you won't "fix" it at all. So I can exploit this behavior as there is
> >
--- Comment #6 from widman at gimpel dot com 2007-08-02 15:56 ---
(In reply to comment #4)
> I should note that I do NOT want to see this bug fixed. I would prefer to hear
> that you won't "fix" it at all. So I can exploit this behavior as there is no
> standards-compliant way of achievi
--- Comment #5 from nathan at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-08-01 19:42 ---
The standard is unclear about exactly why this is ill-defined. Does the
conversion operator take part in overload resolution (and then be rejected, if
it is selected), or is it never entered into the overload set.
I
--- Comment #4 from aribrei at arcor dot de 2007-07-09 12:39 ---
I should note that I do NOT want to see this bug fixed. I would prefer to hear
that you won't "fix" it at all. So I can exploit this behavior as there is no
standards-compliant way of achieving the same results.
--
htt
--- Comment #3 from aribrei at arcor dot de 2007-07-07 01:46 ---
I don't have a copy of the standard at all, unfortunately, but I was referred
to [12.3.2/1 p.6]. If I understood correctly, the problem being that implicit
conversions shall not take place for the class or a base class of t
--- Comment #2 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-07-07 00:00 ---
And why do you think it is not?
I don't have access to my copy of the standard but I think this is valid thing
to do.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32658
--- Comment #1 from aribrei at arcor dot de 2007-07-06 21:44 ---
Created an attachment (id=13857)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=13857&action=view)
File that compiles unexpectedly, without warnings (no #includes)
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32
12 matches
Mail list logo
