Re: c++/8821: gcc 3.2 problem with overloaded inherited operator

[Nathan Sidwell <nathan at codesourcery dot com>]

The following reply was made to PR c++/8821; it has been noted by GNATS.

From: Nathan Sidwell <nathan@codesourcery.com>
To: Wolfgang Bangerth <bangerth@ticam.utexas.edu>
Cc: andre@kiwisound.de, gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org, gcc-gnats@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: Re: c++/8821: gcc 3.2 problem with overloaded inherited operator
Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2002 15:15:11 +0000

 Wolfgang Bangerth wrote:
  >andre wrote
 >>In my opinion it IS a bug because the operator of the parent class has
 >>another argument. So the name resolution should detect the matching
 >>operator in the parent class as usual in C++. I think overloaded
 >>operators should behave like overloaded functions (where the same thing
 >>works!).
 please post such code. It should not behave how you describe.
 
 > Note the distinction I made between overloaded functions and overloaded 
 > virtual functions. For some historical reason, a virtual function with a 
 > different argument list hides a function with the same name in the base 
 > class. This is not the case for non-virtual functions. I just don't know 
 hm, yes it is the same.
 
 > how operators behave. That's the question here. I concede that the 
 > behavior is confusing.
 First name lookup happens, once a name has been found, base classes
 are not searched.
 Then overload resolution happens
 then accessibility is checked
 
 This happens consistently regardless of virtuality or operatorness
 
 nathan
 
 -- 
 Nathan Sidwell    ::   http://www.codesourcery.com   ::     CodeSourcery LLC
           The voices in my head told me to say this
 nathan@codesourcery.com : http://www.cs.bris.ac.uk/~nathan/ : nathan@acm.org