This is the mail archive of the
gcc-prs@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: c++/4205
- From: Nathanael Nerode <neroden at twcny dot rr dot com>
- To: nobody at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Cc: gcc-prs at gcc dot gnu dot org,
- Date: 3 Jan 2003 12:16:06 -0000
- Subject: Re: c++/4205
- Reply-to: Nathanael Nerode <neroden at twcny dot rr dot com>
The following reply was made to PR c++/4205; it has been noted by GNATS.
From: Nathanael Nerode <neroden@twcny.rr.com>
To: gcc-gnats@gcc.gnu.org, gcc-prs@gcc.gnu.org, Jens.Maurer@gmx.net,
gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org, nobody@gcc.gnu.org
Cc:
Subject: Re: c++/4205
Date: Fri, 3 Jan 2003 07:07:54 -0500
This has a further perverse piece of behavior not noted before:
the following code will, correctly, give an error!
--
template<typename F> void quirk(F f) {
(*f) (1);
}
// void foo(int i, int j = 5){}
void bar(int i, int j) {}
int main() {
// quirk(&foo);
quirk(&bar);
}
--
And so will this:
--
template<typename F> void quirk(F f) {
(*f) (1);
}
void foo(int i, int j = 5){}
void bar(int i, int j) {}
int main() {
quirk(&bar);
quirk(&foo);
}
--
As long as "foo" is seen *first*, it 'immunizes' all subsequent functions.
But not otherwise. This is really bad behavior.
It may possibly be related to c++/3784, which has similar "first one seen
controls everyone else" behavior, though I doubt it.