Why warning on static local variables ... ?

[Munagala V. S. Ramanath]

Alexandre Oliva <oliva@dcc.unicamp.br> writes:

    [... stuff deleted ...]

>> The compiler is allowed to optimize away such copy-constructor call.
>> Instead of copy-constructing the object returned by Mul<B> into f3 and
>> f4, egcs arranges that Mul<B> constructs f3 and f4 directly, in-place.

To which I replied:

>    This explains why A(&A) is _not_ called but does not explain why
>    A(int) _is_ called instead in this case; as I see it, in the program
>    output:
>
>A(int): val = 2560
>A(int): val = 2304
>Mul: &n = 0x22a0, n = 8
>A(int): val = 6553600
>Mul: &n = 0x22a0, n = 8
>A(int): val = 5308416
>f1 = 10, f3 = 25600, f2 = 9, f4 = 20736
>
>    The first two calls of A(int) are for f1 and f2; then Mul is called
>    for f3 but then we have _another_ call to A(int) followed by yet
>    another call to A(int) after Mul is called for f4 which is what I
>    still don't understand.

Oops, my mistake: the 3rd and 4th calls to the A(int) constructors are
from the return at the end of the Mul routine. Just didn't see it.

Sorry about that.

Ram