https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92472
--- Comment #8 from Jonathan Wakely <redi at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
(In reply to David Binderman from comment #7)
> (In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #6)
> > Those parameter can NOT be const, because *__b1 and *__b2 will not
> > compile if they're const, because operator* is not const.
>
> My understanding of C++, frayed somewhat since 1988, is that operator *
> being const is a different language feature to parameters being const.
The function looks like this:
friend bool
operator<(const _UnguardedIterator<_RAIter, _Compare>& __bi1,
const _UnguardedIterator<_RAIter, _Compare>& __bi2)
{
// Normal compare.
return (__bi1.__comp)(*__bi1, *__bi2);
}
i.e. it uses *__b1 which uses _UnguardedIterator::operator*
If you change __b1 to be const, you can't call non-const member functions on
that object, including _UnguardedIterator::operator*
> Any guidance on fixing this problem, if it is a problem at all,
> would be most welcome.
It's not a problem. The code should be left alone to die in peace.
