--- Comment #8 from pcarlini at suse dot de 2008-01-04 02:32 ---
Hi Doug. Wanted to start updating parts of , and, as expected, with
straightforward rvalue reference changes I can compile the functior1 case.
However, I'm not clear about the int (test_type::*)() case, which is indeed
fail
--
pcarlini at suse dot de changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |enhancement
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24803
--- Comment #7 from pcarlini at suse dot de 2005-11-13 04:35 ---
Ok, let's suspend it, for now.
--
pcarlini at suse dot de changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status
--- Comment #6 from pcarlini at suse dot de 2005-11-13 04:34 ---
Ok, therefore suspended (not really invalid, not really open) seems to me an
appropriate status. Otherwise, a mildly "depressing" remark: I'm pretty sure
some people are not very happy with pragmas. I'm pretty sure I read s
--- Comment #5 from hhinnant at apple dot com 2005-11-12 19:02 ---
> (1) Strong-arm a C++ front-end guru into implementing rvalue references,
> then use them in the TR1 function objects. Heck, we'll need 'em
> for C++0x anyway :)
At the risk of being reckless. Yes... wel
--- Comment #4 from john at johnmaddock dot co dot uk 2005-11-12 18:32
---
Doug's right: according to 3.4p4 passing an rvalue results in implementation
defined behaviour. So you can support it or not as you wish. I'll update the
Boost test case accordingly.
However... I predict that
--- Comment #3 from pcarlini at suse dot de 2005-11-12 13:27 ---
Hi Doug. First thing to do, before actually studying your extremely useful and
detailed reply (THANKS), is adding Howard in CC...
--
pcarlini at suse dot de changed:
What|Removed |Add
--- Comment #2 from doug dot gregor at gmail dot com 2005-11-12 13:23
---
I don't know how to classify this. The basic problem is one that isn't
really solveable without rvalue references: you can't pass a literal
(e.g., 0) into the operator() of a reference_wrapper or any other
functio
--- Comment #1 from pcarlini at suse dot de 2005-11-12 12:45 ---
Doug, can you look a bit into this one too? Thanks!
--
pcarlini at suse dot de changed:
What|Removed |Added
---
