From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 6048 invoked by alias); 8 Feb 2003 13:56:00 -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 6033 invoked by uid 71); 8 Feb 2003 13:56:00 -0000 Date: Sat, 08 Feb 2003 13:56:00 -0000 Message-ID: <20030208135600.6032.qmail@sources.redhat.com> To: paolo@gcc.gnu.org Cc: gcc-prs@gcc.gnu.org, From: Falk Hueffner Subject: Re: libstdc++/9626: g++ accepts vector > v(2, 4); Reply-To: Falk Hueffner X-SW-Source: 2003-02/txt/msg00402.txt.bz2 List-Id: The following reply was made to PR libstdc++/9626; it has been noted by GNATS. From: Falk Hueffner To: paolo@gcc.gnu.org Cc: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org, gcc-prs@gcc.gnu.org, gcc-gnats@gcc.gnu.org, paolo@gcc.gnu.org Subject: Re: libstdc++/9626: g++ accepts vector > v(2, 4); Date: 08 Feb 2003 14:48:07 +0100 paolo@gcc.gnu.org writes: > Synopsis: g++ accepts vector > v(2, 4); > > State-Changed-From-To: analyzed->feedback > State-Changed-By: paolo > State-Changed-When: Sat Feb 8 13:36:01 2003 > State-Changed-Why: > On second thought, doesn't seem to me that your testcase is > illegal. You are asking for a size 2 vector of size 4 vectors: > there are no implicit conversions which should be prevented by > explicit, since 4 is the argument of the explicit vector(const > A& = A()) constructor of each of them and this seems perfectly > legal. Agreed? No. I pass a 4, but the constructor expects an A = vector. The only way to make a "vector" from "4" is with an "explicit" constructor. -- Falk