brac37 wrote: > > Version: g++ (Ubuntu 4.4.3-4ubuntu5) 4.4.3 > > The first issue is actually a bug. What I did was passing an int by > reference to a void function with an unsigned int by reference as > parameter. The compiler did not complain, instead it produced bullshit > code. > > The second issue was moronlike behavior. What I did was passing the > integer constant 0 to a function name with two functions associated to it. > One was unsigned int name (unsigned int) and the other void name (int *). > Now the compiler gave the error that name (0) was ambiguous since he did > not know if he should convert from int to unsigned int or from int to > int*. > I got a reaction by e-mail, but I can not find it here. It was advised to make a bug report with a test case. This will do for the first problem, but I do not think the second problem is actually a bug. Since the reaction did not give explanation about what could be going on, I will give it a try. The designers of c++ wanted people to write, or at least be able to write > PointerType p = 0; or > PointerType p (0); instead of > PointerType p = NULL; or > PointerType p (NULL); For that purpose, the copy constructor from integers to pointers was made implicit. Therefore, the compiler does not know what implicit copy constructor to choose: (unsigned int)(int) or (int *)(int). My opinion was already before running into this issue that the designers of c++ made a bad choice here. But given that choice, it would be nice when the compiler should choose integer conversion whenever possible before complaining about ambiguity. -- View this message in context: http://old.nabble.com/two-issues-with-unsigned-int-tp29621719p29641733.html Sent from the gcc - Help mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
