This is the mail archive of the gcc-patches@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]
Other format:	[Raw text]

Re: C++: taking address of const object with non-const operator&

From: Jason Merrill <jason at redhat dot com>
To: Alexandre Oliva <aoliva at redhat dot com>
Cc: gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org
Date: Mon, 20 May 2002 04:25:51 +0100
Subject: Re: C++: taking address of const object with non-const operator&
References: <or661nnnx7.fsf@free.redhat.lsd.ic.unicamp.br><wvl1ycascye.fsf@prospero.cambridge.redhat.com><orvg9kmqo7.fsf@free.redhat.lsd.ic.unicamp.br>

>>>>> "Alexandre" == Alexandre Oliva <aoliva@redhat.com> writes:

> On May 17, 2002, Jason Merrill <jason@redhat.com> wrote:

>> Rather, we should always reject bad candidates for op&, op-> and
>> op,.

> I don't see the point of rejecting candidates for `op->'.  It's not
> like there would ever be a built-in operand that would match, so it
> appears to me that the extension is safe in this case.

Fair enough.  This patch is OK.

Jason

References:
- C++: taking address of const object with non-const operator&
  - From: Alexandre Oliva
- Re: C++: taking address of const object with non-const operator&
  - From: Jason Merrill
- Re: C++: taking address of const object with non-const operator&
  - From: Alexandre Oliva

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