--- Comment #5 from Curatica at gmail dot com 2009-12-25 21:12 ---
Whatever...
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42470
--- Comment #4 from Curatica at gmail dot com 2009-12-25 21:11 ---
Whatever...
--
Curatica at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED
--- Comment #3 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2009-12-25 09:47
---
This is not the proper place for academic discussions, definitely. If you are
not convinced, try Comeau, or SunStudio, or ICC in strict mode.
--
paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What
--- Comment #2 from Curatica at gmail dot com 2009-12-25 02:04 ---
Please, understand that for me this is just a disinterested, academic
discussion: no offense. I am not sure that I agree with the theory.
The standard (8.5.1) states that:
T x = a;
is a "copy-initialization" but do
--- Comment #1 from redi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-12-23 10:30 ---
The code should not compile, Visual Studio is wrong.
Base b = 5;
is a copy initialization, equivalent to
Base b = Base(5);
which requires a copy constructor, but your copy constructor takes a non-const
Base& and
