------- Comment #3 from boostcpp at gmail dot com 2010-03-10 22:30 ------- I'm not sure about this. Maybe gcc is right. Even though it take zero parameter, it's still there. I don't know.
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43315
------- Comment #3 from boostcpp at gmail dot com 2010-03-10 22:30 ------- I'm not sure about this. Maybe gcc is right. Even though it take zero parameter, it's still there. I don't know.
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43315