This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: Problem with "<<" operator
- To: aoliva at redhat dot com (Alexandre Oliva)
- Subject: Re: Problem with "<<" operator
- From: Joe Buck <jbuck at racerx dot synopsys dot com>
- Date: Fri, 25 Aug 2000 12:32:28 -0700 (PDT)
- Cc: pfrancq at ulb dot ac dot be (Pascal Francq), gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org
> On Aug 25, 2000, Joe Buck <jbuck@racerx.synopsys.com> wrote:
>
> > I believe that the C++ standard now requires an explicit & to indicate
> > a pointer-to-function
>
> Nope, `&' is only required for pointer-to-members. A function& decays
> to function* and, from that, I believe it decays to bool.
A name of a function can be converted to a pointer to function. But can
it be silently converted to a bool?
Is aCC wrong for calling this an error? Even if so, I believe that
this should be at least a warning, as the behavior is unlikely to be
right and the user can always write an explicit cast if s/he really
means it.