------- Comment #6 from yuanfei8077 at gmail dot com 2006-10-02 14:19 ------- Subject: Re: Rule that binding rvalue to a refernce need a copy ctor don't work
Thank you Andrew, appreciate your help on this topic. -Kelvin On 1 Oct 2006 20:33:33 -0000, pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > ------- Comment #5 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-10-01 20:33 > ------- > (In reply to comment #3) > > Plesae seee Comment #2 From Kelvin 2006-09-28 23:25 [reply]. > > > > In addition 2 questions I raised in the Commet2. I also have one more > > question > > about the rule "bind an rvalue to a reference, > > we need to let copy ctor of the class be accessible.", I found that this > > rule > > only effective when the reference is delcared as "const &", but if we remove > > keyword "const", then "no matching" happen again. > > Because it will not be a copy constructor that can bind a rvalue to a > reference > at that point so this is still not a bug. > > > -- > > pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: > > What |Removed |Added > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED > Resolution| |INVALID > > > http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29266 > > ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- > You reported the bug, or are watching the reporter. > -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29266
