This is the mail archive of the
gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: Bug: Failure to compile legal code (gcc-2.95.2)
- To: aoliva at redhat dot com (Alexandre Oliva)
- Subject: Re: Bug: Failure to compile legal code (gcc-2.95.2)
- From: Mike Harrold <mharrold at cas dot org>
- Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2001 09:37:44 -0500 (EST)
- Cc: mharrold at cas dot org (Mike Harrold), gcc-bugs at gcc dot gnu dot org
>
> On Jan 17, 2001, Mike Harrold <mharrold@cas.org> wrote:
>
> > The code below fails to compile. However, if the commented line in class B
> > is uncommented, it compiles fine. I assume this is a bug, or I am missing
> > something very obvious.
>
> IIRC, the declaration of operator<< in class B hides the one in class
> A.
The declaration of B::operator(int) hides A::operator(const char*) ?
Surely this can't be right, especially given that the operator is a
virtual function?
Regards,
/Mike