Andrew Haley wrote:
Kirill Berezin wrote:
Hie.
I crossed the very curious sample of code the gcc failed to compile.
Here is the example:
#include <stdio.h>
#include <stdlib.h>
class test {
public:
int func(int*& a1){
a2 = a1;
return 0;
}
void print(){ printf("0x%X \n", a2);};
private:
int* a2;
};
int main(){
int* a;
int c;
test b;
//
b.func(&c);
b.print();
return 0;
}
с++ prints the following error
test05.cc: In function 'int main()':
test05.cc:27: error: no matching function for call to 'test::func(int*)'
test05.cc:12: note: candidates are: int test::func(int*&)
I think that it is reasonable not to compile, because, for example, it
would not possible to guess a correct function to overload. But The C++
standard, at first glance, does not prohibit such a coding style.
Doesn't it?
&c yeilds an rvalue of type int*, and you're trying to pass it
as an lvalue to a function. I presume you're not actually
trying to use an rvalue reference here.
Fix it this way:
int func(int *const & a1){
a2 = a1;
return 0;
}
Andrew.
Thank you, this is very helpful. It looks like my knowledge of const
qualifiers is not deep enough.
Kirill.
--
Кирилл Березин <kyb22@xxxxxx>
Старший инженер-программист
Группа развития ISP систем, Совинтел
Группа Компаний ВымпелКом
