From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 12318 invoked by alias); 11 Dec 2002 14:46:05 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-prs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-prs-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 12303 invoked by uid 71); 11 Dec 2002 14:46:04 -0000 Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2002 06:46:00 -0000 Message-ID: <20021211144604.12302.qmail@sources.redhat.com> To: nobody@gcc.gnu.org Cc: gcc-prs@gcc.gnu.org, From: Wolfgang Bangerth Subject: Re: Re: c++/8821: gcc 3.2 problem with overloaded inherited operator Reply-To: Wolfgang Bangerth X-SW-Source: 2002-12/txt/msg00629.txt.bz2 List-Id: The following reply was made to PR c++/8821; it has been noted by GNATS. From: Wolfgang Bangerth To: andre@kiwisound.de Cc: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org, Subject: Re: Re: c++/8821: gcc 3.2 problem with overloaded inherited operator Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2002 08:43:28 -0600 (CST) > In my opinion it IS a bug because the operator of the parent class has > another argument. So the name resolution should detect the matching > operator in the parent class as usual in C++. I think overloaded > operators should behave like overloaded functions (where the same thing > works!). Note the distinction I made between overloaded functions and overloaded virtual functions. For some historical reason, a virtual function with a different argument list hides a function with the same name in the base class. This is not the case for non-virtual functions. I just don't know how operators behave. That's the question here. I concede that the behavior is confusing. Regards Wolfgang ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Wolfgang Bangerth email: bangerth@ticam.utexas.edu www: http://www.ticam.utexas.edu/~bangerth