http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52521
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> 2012-03-09 21:21:15 UTC --- Created attachment 26869 --> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=26869 gcc48-pr52521.patch If ignoring possibility of parameters with default arguments, I guess the fix could look like this. If operator"" could have default arguments, it would complicate things a little bit. [over.literal]/3 lists what argument types are allowed, so IMHO it isn't possible to have say int operator"" _w (long double, long double = 2.0L);, but what if there is say int operator"" _w (const char *, std::size_t = 0); ? Can it be called for int i = 123_w; ? Though, [over.literal]/4 says that a raw literal operator contains a single const char * argument and [lex.ext]/{3,4} says that a raw literal operator is called for integer/floating udlits, so perhaps it shouldn't call int operator"" _w (const char *, std::size_t = 0); and the attached patch is sufficient. Jason, what do you think?
