--- Comment #7 from redi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-04-29 22:29 ---
compiles without error using 4.4.3 and 4.6.0
--
redi at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--
--- Comment #6 from fang at csl dot cornell dot edu 2007-09-10 04:04
---
Are you referring to DR 152?
http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/cwg_defects.html#152
--
fang at csl dot cornell dot edu changed:
What|Removed |Added
---
--- Comment #5 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-09-09 10:33 ---
Subject: Re: copy constructor error
> --- Comment #4 from stevenyi at 163 dot com 2007-09-09 05:26 ---
> I can not see any reason to call the copy constructor here. If you remove
> keyword explicit so that
> --- Comment #4 from stevenyi at 163 dot com 2007-09-09 05:26 ---
> I can not see any reason to call the copy constructor here. If you remove
> keyword explicit so that let the code compile, you can find that the copy
> constructor is not called at all.
Again the 1998 standard (as writte
--- Comment #4 from stevenyi at 163 dot com 2007-09-09 05:26 ---
I can not see any reason to call the copy constructor here. If you remove
keyword explicit so that let the code compile, you can find that the copy
constructor is not called at all.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_
--- Comment #3 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-09-09 02:58 ---
There is a C++ defect report about this really. GCC follows exactly what the
standard says but the defect report says something different.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33350
--- Comment #2 from stevenyi at 163 dot com 2007-09-09 02:46 ---
(In reply to comment #1)
> Yes the copy constructor is going to be called implicately here.
the copy constructor is not actually called at runtime. and both intel compiler
and vc++ can compile this code.
--
http://gcc
--- Comment #1 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-09-08 09:15 ---
Yes the copy constructor is going to be called implicately here.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33350
