From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 21055 invoked by alias); 20 May 2005 00:15:40 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-bugs-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 20984 invoked by alias); 20 May 2005 00:15:35 -0000 Date: Fri, 20 May 2005 00:15:00 -0000 Message-ID: <20050520001535.20983.qmail@sourceware.org> From: "gdr at integrable-solutions dot net" To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org In-Reply-To: <20050519212022.21672.igodard@pacbell.net> References: <20050519212022.21672.igodard@pacbell.net> Reply-To: gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug c++/21672] Loses temporary in complex expression X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC X-SW-Source: 2005-05/txt/msg02844.txt.bz2 List-Id: ------- Additional Comments From gdr at integrable-solutions dot net 2005-05-20 00:15 ------- Subject: Re: Loses temporary in complex expression "pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org" writes: | (In reply to comment #9) | > And we can construct more. But it does not rule out the fact that we | > should handle the simple cases. | | What assuming |= returns *this, that is just wrong and you know it, I can't parse that. | if the compiler assumes that, then we will get false warnings for | places which don't return a reference to a temporary variable. Since you're crediting me of knowing something (I don't know exactly what :-)) you must also credit me of not wanting false warnings. -- Gaby -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21672