Re: c++/5305

Re: c++/5305

[Wolfgang Bangerth]

The following reply was made to PR c++/5305; it has been noted by GNATS.

From: Wolfgang Bangerth <bangerth@ticam.utexas.edu>
To: gcc-gnats@gcc.gnu.org
Cc:  
Subject: Re: c++/5305
Date: Wed, 22 Jan 2003 14:00:42 -0600 (CST)

 The problem continues to exist. Here's a simpler testcase:
 --------------------
 struct DD {
     DD(int d);
     DD(const double d, const double e);
 };
 
 // DD::DD(int) undefined
 DD::DD (const double d, const double e = 0.0) {}
 
 int main() {
   DD a = 0.0;
 }
 ---------------------------------
 We get a linker error since DD::DD(int) is undefined. It shouldn't be 
 called, though.
 
 The problem goes away if the default argument is attach to the function 
 declaration rather than definition, and also if the object is created via
   DD a(0.0);
 I don't know whether the two forms are actually equivalent. Will have to 
 read up on this.
 
 W.
 
 -------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Wolfgang Bangerth             email:            bangerth@ticam.utexas.edu
                               www: http://www.ticam.utexas.edu/~bangerth/
 
 

Re: c++/5305

[Wolfgang Bangerth]

The following reply was made to PR c++/5305; it has been noted by GNATS.

From: Wolfgang Bangerth <bangerth@ticam.utexas.edu>
To: gcc-gnats@gcc.gnu.org
Cc:  
Subject: Re: c++/5305
Date: Wed, 22 Jan 2003 14:10:14 -0600 (CST)

 > The problem goes away if the default argument is attach to the function 
 > declaration rather than definition, and also if the object is created via
 >   DD a(0.0);
 > I don't know whether the two forms are actually equivalent. Will have to 
 > read up on this.
 
 12.3.1.1 has an example that says that 
   DD a = 0.0;
 should here indeed call the two-parameter constructor.
 
 W.
 
 -------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Wolfgang Bangerth             email:            bangerth@ticam.utexas.edu
                               www: http://www.ticam.utexas.edu/~bangerth/