https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49531
Eric Gallager <egallager at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Keywords| |rejects-valid
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed| |2017-08-18
CC| |egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
Ever confirmed|0 |1
--- Comment #1 from Eric Gallager <egallager at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
Confirmed, clang accepts it with both standards:
$ /usr/local/bin/g++ -c -Wall -Wextra -pedantic -std=c++03 49531.cc
49531.cc: In function ‘void f()’:
49531.cc:5:12: error: statement cannot resolve address of overloaded function
void f() { &A::operator int; }
^~
$ /usr/local/bin/g++ -c -Wall -Wextra -pedantic -std=c++0x 49531.cc
49531.cc: In function ‘void f()’:
49531.cc:5:12: error: statement cannot resolve address of overloaded function
void f() { &A::operator int; }
^~
$ /sw/opt/llvm-3.1/bin/clang++ -c -Wall -Wextra -pedantic -std=c++03 49531.cc
49531.cc:5:12: warning: expression result unused [-Wunused-value]
void f() { &A::operator int; }
^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
1 warning generated.
$ /sw/opt/llvm-3.1/bin/clang++ -c -Wall -Wextra -pedantic -std=c++0x 49531.cc
49531.cc:5:12: warning: expression result unused [-Wunused-value]
void f() { &A::operator int; }
^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
1 warning generated.
$
(although in my opinion the code still just looks weird...)
