--- Comment #25 from kspiteri at ieee dot org 2006-06-15 06:25 ---
In reply to comment #24:
> No it should not be. a() is a temporary so it cannot be bound to "a&". At
> least it should not be.
Then this is not a bug. The C++ standard in 27.6.2.1 defines
* basic_ostream& operator<<(co
--- Comment #24 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-06-14 15:30
---
(In reply to comment #23)
> Instead, the output is:
> char
> void
No it should not be. a() is a temporary so it cannot be bound to "a&". At
least it should not be.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi
--- Comment #23 from kspiteri at ieee dot org 2006-06-14 15:28 ---
The test case in attachment 11669 shows that this bug has nothing to do with
ostreams. The output from the test case should be:
char
char
Instead, the output is:
char
void
--
kspiteri at ieee dot org changed:
--- Comment #22 from kspiteri at ieee dot org 2006-06-14 15:24 ---
Created an attachment (id=11669)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=11669&action=view)
Minimal test case.
Test case showing bug is independant of ostreams.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cg
--- Comment #21 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-05-19 16:35
---
*** Bug 27678 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
-
--- Comment #20 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-31 01:21
---
More comments about this issue can be found in the following libstdc++ thread:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/libstdc++/2006-01/msg00177.html
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=9925
--- Comment #19 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-31 01:20
---
*** Bug 26040 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
-
--- Comment #18 from aburger at cea dot fr 2005-12-14 19:16 ---
This does not compile, and it is much simpler than ostr(ing)stream:
class A {
public:
int a;
A() : a(0) {}
A& operator<<(int aa) { return *this; }
};
A& operator<<(A& thys, A& (*f)(A&))
{ return f(thys); }
A&
--- Comment #17 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-14 15:11
---
*** Bug 25410 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
-
--- Comment #16 from igodard at pacbell dot net 2005-12-01 00:20 ---
Sorry Gaby; I fat-fingered a partial post. Is there any way to delete a posting
made in error?
Ivan
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=9925
--- Comment #15 from gdr at integrable-solutions dot net 2005-12-01 00:10
---
Subject: Re: ostrstream (buf, size) << "..." does not work properly
"igodard at pacbell dot net" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| Two bugs:
with no more details, that does not help me :-)
--Gaby
--
htt
--- Comment #14 from igodard at pacbell dot net 2005-12-01 00:06 ---
Two bugs:
1) diagnostic, about location of deprecated files
2) constructor as non-const lvalue, where using a constructor as left-operand
of
"<<" produces screwey output.
I'm concerned about the second. I can wr
--- Comment #13 from igodard at pacbell dot net 2005-11-30 23:58 ---
Two bugs:
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=9925
--- Comment #12 from gdr at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-11-30 23:27 ---
(In reply to comment #11)
> *** Bug 24291 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
>
Is thi PR really about "diagnostic"? I don't see what is "wrong" and
what is not.
-- Gaby
--
gdr at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #11 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-10-09 20:54
---
*** Bug 24291 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
-
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-07-20
15:36 ---
*** Bug 22566 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
What|Removed |Added
16 matches
Mail list logo
