This is the mail archive of the gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org 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] |
using namespace std;
struct A
{
int a;
static void function1(int)
{
cout << __PRETTY_FUNCTION__ << endl;
}
void function2(int)
{
this->a = 0;
cout << __PRETTY_FUNCTION__ << endl;
}
void (* const fp1())(int) const
{
this->a = 0; // Works, OK
cout << __PRETTY_FUNCTION__ << endl;
return & A::function1;
}
void (A::* const fp2() const)(int) const
{
//this->a = 0; // Won't work,
OK
cout << __PRETTY_FUNCTION__ << endl;
return & A::function2;
}
};
int main()
{
A a;
a.fp1()(0);
(a.*a.fp2())(0);
}
Outputs:
void (*const A::fp1())(int) const
static void A::function1(int)
void (A::* A::fp2())(int) const const
void A::function2(int)
Under:
Reading specs from /usr/lib/gcc-lib/i386-linux/2.95.2/specs
gcc version 2.95.2 20000220 (Debian GNU/Linux)
What I think is wrong, is that:
1- fp1() returns a pointer to a function. Why can I write 'const' at
the very end of the line? It's not a pointer to a member.
2- fp2() returns a pointer to a const member function. That particular
member happens to be A::function2 which is not a constant member. Is the
'const' silently discarded here?
Thank you.
begin:vcard n:Bouchard;Philippe x-mozilla-html:FALSE org:Corel Linux adr:;;;;;; version:2.1 email;internet:philippeb@corel.com title:Software Engineer x-mozilla-cpt:;0 fn:Philippe Bouchard end:vcard
| Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
|---|---|---|
| Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |