From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 11197 invoked by alias); 25 Jan 2006 03:10:01 -0000 Received: (qmail 11157 invoked by alias); 25 Jan 2006 03:09:55 -0000 Date: Wed, 25 Jan 2006 03:10:00 -0000 Message-ID: <20060125030955.11156.qmail@sourceware.org> X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC References: Subject: [Bug c++/25950] [3.4/4.0/4.1 Regression] [DR 152] Reference binding and explicit copy constructors In-Reply-To: Reply-To: gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org From: "gdr at cs dot tamu dot edu" 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 X-SW-Source: 2006-01/txt/msg02682.txt.bz2 List-Id: ------- Comment #11 from gdr at cs dot tamu dot edu 2006-01-25 03:09 ------- Subject: Re: [3.4/4.0/4.1] [DR 391] Reference binding and explicit copy constructors "hhinnant at apple dot com" writes: | ------- Comment #9 from hhinnant at apple dot com 2006-01-25 02:54 ------- | (In reply to comment #8) | > Changing to request for enhancement. The requested behaviour is a change | > in th working paper. Existing behaviour is what is required by the standard | > (even when it can be argued that checking for something that is elided is | > suboptimal.) | | Did you read comment 3? Yes. Is your claim that whether the copy constructor is converting or not does not matter? -- Gaby -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25950