Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!microsoft!jimad
From: jimad@microsoft.UUCP (Jim ADCOCK)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c++
Subject: Re: Correction to Re: Default constructor, unexpected call
Message-ID: <56677@microsoft.UUCP>
Date: 17 Aug 90 17:51:58 GMT
References: <1990Aug14.190925.19166@csc.ti.com> <1199@lupine.NCD.COM>
Reply-To: jimad@microsoft.UUCP (Jim ADCOCK)
Organization: Microsoft Corp., Redmond WA
Lines: 16

In article <1990Aug14.190925.19166@csc.ti.com> bmk@osage.csc.ti.com (Brian M Kennedy) writes:
>Is it a compiler bug?  Only if the C++ language requires compilers to 
>define copy constructors a certain way.  I do not believe E&S does so.
>It does define exactly how copy constructors should be DECLARED and 
>when they should be DEFINED, but it only hints at how it should be
>DEFINED.  In fact, E&S (p295) hints that a compiler could do "bitwise" 
>copying in the implicit copy constructors.  Perhaps the ANSI spec should
>be more clear about this.

Hm, I thought it was clear that E&S pg 295 was saying that a smart compiler
could recognize when the results of a generated copy constructor would
be identical to a bitwise copy, and just do the bitwise copy using an
intrinsic.

In any case, the small text annotation "hints" such as this one, do
not constitute part of the text the ANSI-fication effort is working from.