Am Dienstag, 2. Mai 2006 17:28 schrieb John Love-Jensen: > > Is this an error in the compiler or is there a mistake in the code? > > I think (but I'm not sure) that it is a mistake in the code. > > In that the alignment and packing constraints of a.b.c are different from > a plain old int& and int const&. But why does the call to func(int const &) succeed, if I remove the other func function? > > I expect, that if the compiler really is not able to bind the value to > > an int&, then it tries to bind the value to int const & as this is done > > with temporaries for example. > It won't create a temporary. But if you want it to, you can do this: > > func(a.b.c + 0); In the real code c is not an int but another struct. I helped myself by using func(static_cast<int const>(a.b.c)); Thanks, Christoph
