From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 29661 invoked by alias); 27 Mar 2003 17:56:01 -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 29633 invoked by uid 71); 27 Mar 2003 17:56:00 -0000 Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2003 18:16:00 -0000 Message-ID: <20030327175600.29632.qmail@sources.redhat.com> To: nobody@gcc.gnu.org Cc: gcc-prs@gcc.gnu.org, From: Wolfgang Bangerth Subject: Re: c++/10245: [3.3/3.4 regression] ?: operator requires public copy constructor of return type Reply-To: Wolfgang Bangerth X-SW-Source: 2003-03/txt/msg01924.txt.bz2 List-Id: The following reply was made to PR c++/10245; it has been noted by GNATS. From: Wolfgang Bangerth To: Andreas Schwab Cc: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org, , , , Subject: Re: c++/10245: [3.3/3.4 regression] ?: operator requires public copy constructor of return type Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2003 11:55:29 -0600 (CST) > |> Apparently it wants to make a copy of the return arguments. > |> Since at least in Standard C++ (not in Gnu C++) ?: returns > |> an rvalue, I don't think this is necessary. > > ?: returns an lvalue if both expressions have the same type. Sorry for the confusion, you are of course right. It shouldn't change the outcome, though. I still think this behavior is in error. W. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Wolfgang Bangerth email: bangerth@ticam.utexas.edu www: http://www.ticam.utexas.edu/~bangerth/