https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24847
--- Comment #6 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Ivan Godard from comment #0)
> The second constructor is intended to catch the case: "foo(foo 0, A>", i.e. to convert an instance of foo with second argument zero to a
> foo with any other seco
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24847
--- Comment #5 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Overload resolution considers both constructors, to decide which one v(i)
should use. Performing overload resolution on foo::foo(foo) will cause the instantiation of struct foo to see if there is a
valid co
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24847
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski ---
these compiler reject this code:
GCC
MSVC
ICC
Only clang accepts the code.
All of the ones which reject it, all say the constructor is a copy constructor.
--- Comment #3 from bangerth at dealii dot org 2005-11-23 05:21 ---
The second constructor is definitely bogus, but its mere existence
does no harm. We should only perform the check for sensibility when
we actually instantiate the second constructor.
W.
--
bangerth at dealii dot or
--- Comment #2 from igodard at pacbell dot net 2005-11-15 00:30 ---
The original was much more sensible - and much bigger :-)
Ivan
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24847
--- Comment #1 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-11-14 19:32 ---
Comeau also rejects this. I don't understand why we are trying to instantiate
foo::foo(foo) except to try to match the constructor, so
maybe this is invalid after all. Some one else really needs to look at this.
A
