This is the mail archive of the
gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
[Bug c++/11879] Thinks constructor call is a declaration.
- From: "lerdsuwa at gcc dot gnu dot org" <gcc-bugzilla at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- To: gcc-bugs at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: 11 Aug 2003 13:04:29 -0000
- Subject: [Bug c++/11879] Thinks constructor call is a declaration.
- References: <20030811085214.11879.igodard@pacbell.net>
- Reply-to: gcc-bugzilla at gcc dot gnu dot org
PLEASE REPLY TO gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org ONLY, *NOT* gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=11879
lerdsuwa at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution| |INVALID
------- Additional Comments From lerdsuwa at gcc dot gnu dot org 2003-08-11 13:04 -------
Not a bug. Although the code
SetUnexpected(Foo);
can be viewed as a declaration of variable name 'Foo' with
type 'SetUnexpected' or a type conversion from 'Foo' to
'SetUnexpected'. According to the standard, when such
ambiguity appears, it must be resolved to a declaration.
So GCC's behavios is correct.