Christopher Faylor wrote: > >While this might help to avoid... something, I'm seriously wondering > >what's wrong with this expression. Why does each new version of gcc > >add new incompatibilities? > > Well, it might actually be "a gcc bug".
Here I admit to using a snapshot verion of gcc and not the 4.0 release, primarily because I had read of bug reports e.g. KDE blacklisting 4.0 entirely in their build scripts due to compiler problems. So who knows, maybe I should try with a release build. $ g++-4 -v Using built-in specs. Target: i686-pc-cygwin Configured with: ../gcc-4.1-20050501/configure --verbose --prefix=/usr/local --exec-prefix=/usr/local --sysconfdir=/etc --libdir=/usr/local/lib --libexecdir=/usr/local/lib --mandir=/usr/local/man --infodir=/usr/local/info --program-suffix=-4 --enable-languages=c,c++ --disable-nls --without-included-gettext --with-system-zlib --enable-interpreter --enable-threads=posix --enable-sjlj-exceptions --disable-version-specific-runtime-libs --disable-win32-registry Thread model: posix gcc version 4.1.0 20050501 (experimental) Brian