On May 7, 11:44=A0am, Anthony Williams <anthony_w....@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Should the following compile, and what should it print?
Really, I don't know.Sorry to answer question
with question.
>
> #include <memory>
> #include <iostream>
>
> void foo(std::auto_ptr<int> x)
Is same as
void foo(const std::auto_ptr<int> x) ?
> struct dummy
> {
> =A0 =A0 dummy(std::auto_ptr<int> const&)
> =A0 =A0 {}
>
> };
>
> void foo(dummy x)
=2E...
> int main()
> {
> =A0 =A0 std::auto_ptr<int> const x(new int);
> =A0 =A0 foo(x);
>
> }
>
> MSVC 9.0 and g++ 4.3 disagree.
>
> MSVC compiles it and prints "dummy const ref", which is what I expected.
>
> g++ refuses to compile it, saying that:
=2E...
It isn;t clear to me following example:
class A{
public:
A(){}
A(A&){}
};
A foo(){ return A(); }
int main()
{
A a;
a =3D foo();
}
g++ gives strange error:
cctor.cpp: In function =91A foo()=92:
cctor.cpp:7: error: no matching function for call to =91A::A(A)=92
cctor.cpp:4: note: candidates are: A::A(A&)
cctor.cpp: In function =91int main()=92:
cctor.cpp:12: error: no matching function for call to =91A::A(A)=92
cctor.cpp:4: note: candidates are: A::A(A&)
I don;t have msvc handy but I think saw somewhere,
that, it compiles without error.
So, perhaps, as g++ wants A(A) this is similar to
your question.
As I never used non const reference copy constructor,
I'm really confused about it's behavior.
It seems to me that compiler writers are too ;)
Greetings, Branimir.
|
