------- Comment #16 from gdr at cs dot tamu dot edu 2006-01-25 03:40 ------- Subject: Re: [3.4/4.0/4.1] [DR 392] Reference binding and explicit copy constructors
"hhinnant at apple dot com" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: | (In reply to comment #11) | > | Did you read comment 3? | > | > Yes. Is your claim that whether the copy constructor is converting or | > not does not matter? | | No. My suspicion is that there is a 99.99% chance that EDG is conforming to | C++03 in this regard. Further investigation reveals this: If an implementation chooses the second bullet (where it elects to copy the temporary to another temporary) what is the semantics? Is it copy-initialization as everywhere else in argument pass-by-value? Or is it direct-initialization? That is what my question meant. GCC always uses copy-initialization in function argument passing, except when the parameter directly binds, i.e. no temporary is needed. | And furthermore, their behavior (which is different from | ours) is preferable to our customers. I think I know where this PR comes from (move semantics simulation anyone? :-). My main objection is classifying it as regression. The issue would deserve a DR if we did not already have 391. -- Gaby -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25950
