Xref: utzoo comp.lang.c++:6495 gnu.g++.bug:1487
Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!brutus.cs.uiuc.edu!jarthur!uci-ics!rfg
From: rfg@ics.uci.edu (Ronald Guilmette)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c++,gnu.g++.bug
Subject: g++ 1.36.1 bug 900215_01 (really Re: Cast to void)
Message-ID: <25DAF91A.29169@paris.ics.uci.edu>
Date: 15 Feb 90 18:46:50 GMT
References: <10742@june.cs.washington.edu>
Reply-To: rfg@ics.uci.edu (Ronald Guilmette)
Organization: UC Irvine Department of ICS
Lines: 37

In article <10742@june.cs.washington.edu> david@june.cs.washington.edu (David Callahan) writes:
>Is defining operator void legal? (g++ gave no messages) If so, it
>seems that g++ is in error when the explicit cast is present.
>Should implicit casts to void also invoke the operator void? I
>certainly hope so since explicit casts to void seem very uncommon.


// g++ 1.36.1 bug 900215_01

// g++ allows the definition of a type conversion operator `operator void'
// for class types, but subsequently fails to generate calls (where needed)
// for such type conversion operators.

// Cfront 2.0 does generate such calls.

// The following program exits with status 0 when compiled with Cfront 2.0
// but exits with status 1 when compiled with g++.

struct struct0 {

  operator void ();
};

int exit_status = 1;

struct0::operator void ()
{
  exit_status = 0;
}

struct struct0 s0_object;

int main ()
{
  (void) s0_object;
  return exit_status;
}