This is the mail archive of the
libstdc++@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the libstdc++ project.
Re: A simple testcase (Re: [RFC] middle-end/21743...)
- From: Paolo Carlini <pcarlini at suse dot de>
- To: Paolo Carlini <pcarlini at suse dot de>
- Cc: libstdc++ <libstdc++ at gcc dot gnu dot org>,"Kaveh R. Ghazi" <ghazi at caip dot rutgers dot edu>,Roger Sayle <roger at eyesopen dot com>,Gabriel Dos Reis <gdr at integrable-solutions dot net>
- Date: Fri, 27 May 2005 14:07:04 +0200
- Subject: Re: A simple testcase (Re: [RFC] middle-end/21743...)
- References: <429702B9.5000109@suse.de> <429703B5.3090902@suse.de> <42970AFE.7080206@suse.de>
Paolo Carlini wrote:
>Hi again ;)
>
>In the meanwhile figure out a simple testcase, clearly showing the issue.
>
>namespace mine
>{
> void csin(int) { };
> int cpow;
>};
>
>using mine::csin; // Ok.
>using mine::cpow; // Not ok.
>
>I'm not sure whether we can do something about this...
>
>
I'd like also to add my tendentious wild guess: builtins are only not
considered during overload resolution, *not* completely hidden as names.
I don't think this is right. I don't think the builtin cpow (normally,
correctyl, hidden as a function) should conflict with my integer mine::cpow.
Gaby, is there something I'm missing?
Paolo.