From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-bugs-return-42949-listarch-gcc-bugs=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 29172 invoked by alias); 10 Sep 2002 06:23:38 -0000
Mailing-List: contact gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Archive: <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-bugs/>
List-Post: <mailto:gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org>
Sender: gcc-bugs-owner@gcc.gnu.org
Received: (qmail 28667 invoked from network); 10 Sep 2002 06:22:27 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO mailout09.sul.t-online.com) (194.25.134.84)
  by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 10 Sep 2002 06:22:27 -0000
Received: from fwd02.sul.t-online.de 
	by mailout09.sul.t-online.com with smtp 
	id 17oePm-0000y8-03; Tue, 10 Sep 2002 08:22:22 +0200
Received: from p508B9D51.dip.t-dialin.net (0620532566-0001@[80.139.157.81]) by fwd02.sul.t-online.com
	with esmtp id 17oePW-1AvXBQC; Tue, 10 Sep 2002 08:22:06 +0200
From: Ritzert@t-online.de (Michael Ritzert)
To: Matt Austern <austern@apple.com>
Subject: Re: Is this a bug?
Date: Tue, 10 Sep 2002 01:06:00 -0000
User-Agent: KMail/1.4.6
Cc: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
References: <2A1686ED-BF81-11D6-967F-00039390D9E0@apple.com>
In-Reply-To: <2A1686ED-BF81-11D6-967F-00039390D9E0@apple.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
  charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Content-Disposition: inline
Message-Id: <200209100822.14569.ritzert@t-online.de>
X-Sender: 0620532566-0001@t-dialin.net
X-SW-Source: 2002-09/txt/msg00192.txt.bz2
List-Id: <gcc-bugs.sourceware.org>

Just back from a week-long holiday...

Am Dienstag, 3. September 2002 23:07 schrieb Matt Austern:
> On Friday, August 30, 2002, at 02:39 AM, Ritzert@t-online.de wrote:
> > Hi all,
> >
> > Since 2002-08-26 I'm unable to compile STLPort with gcc HEAD. I have
> > stripped down the STLPort code to this small testcase:
> >
> > # cat x.cpp
> > template <class _Tp>
> > inline const _Tp& max(const _Tp& __a, const _Tp& __b)
> >         { return __a < __b ? __b : __a; }
> >
> > void append()
> > {
> >         const unsigned __old_size = 3;
> >         int __n = 7;
> >         max(__old_size, static_cast<unsigned>(__n));
> > }
>
> I think the compiler is wrong to complain.  It's true that
> static_cast<unsigned>(__n) is an rvalue.  However, binding
> a const reference to an rvalue is legal.

Thanks, that's exactly the point I was uncertain about.

Ok, so I will file a bug report with this further reduced testcase shortly:

int main()
{
        int bar = 7;
        const unsigned& foo = static_cast<unsigned>(bar);
}

Michael