This is the mail archive of the mailing list for the GCC project.

Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]

Re: c++/4047: assuming & on overloaded member functions

Hi Phil,

Thank you very much. It does work! But I'm confused,
which one is C++ standard?
server.use(T::foo); or server.use(&T::foo); ?

The first compiles on AIX native c/c++ compiler xlc, as well
as gcc3.0. And I guess it is correct in grammar. Since T::foo is
a pointer to function?

Maybe in gcc2.95.x, T::foo is not a pointer to member function?
Yu Zhang
IBM Canada Pacific Development Centre(PDC)
4611 Canada  Way, Burnaby, B.C. Canada V5G 4X3
Phone: (604) 297-3108  Fax:(604)297-3020

                    Phil Edwards                                                                                       
                    <pedwards@disaste       To:     Yu Zhang/CanWest/IBM@IBMCA                                         
          >              cc:                                                    
                                            Subject:     Re: c++/4047: assuming & on overloaded member functions       
                    08/20/2001 12:40                                                                                   
                    Please respond to                                                                                  
                    Phil Edwards                                                                                       

On Fri, Aug 17, 2001 at 02:31:38PM -0700, Yu Zhang/CanWest/IBM wrote:
> I've just submitted a bug report c++/4047. I'm wondering if anybody else
> has encountered the same problem before. Is there any quick fix for
> >Description:
> when we use an overloaded static member function as
> another function's input argument, g++ report "assuming
> & on overloaded member functions".
>   void call()
>   {
>     server.use(T::foo);
>   };

What's the problem with just writing


instead?  This is specifically allowed by the C++ standard, and would work
under both versions.


Would I had phrases that are not known, utterances that are strange, in
new language that has not been used, free from repetition, not an utterance
which has grown stale, which men of old have spoken.
                                     - anonymous Egyptian scribe, c.1700 BC

Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]