From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 16174 invoked by alias); 25 Jan 2006 03:24:47 -0000 Received: (qmail 16152 invoked by uid 48); 25 Jan 2006 03:24:44 -0000 Date: Wed, 25 Jan 2006 03:24:00 -0000 Message-ID: <20060125032444.16151.qmail@sourceware.org> X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC References: Subject: [Bug c++/25950] [3.4/4.0/4.1] [DR 392] Reference binding and explicit copy constructors In-Reply-To: Reply-To: gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org From: "hhinnant at apple dot com" 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/msg02685.txt.bz2 List-Id: ------- Comment #13 from hhinnant at apple dot com 2006-01-25 03:24 ------- (In reply to comment #11) > | Did you read comment 3? > > Yes. Is your claim that whether the copy constructor is converting or > not does not matter? No. My suspicion is that there is a 99.99% chance that EDG is conforming to C++03 in this regard. And furthermore, their behavior (which is different from ours) is preferable to our customers. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25950