Keith Kyzivat wrote: > Hum.. > > I always figured (and still believe) this sort of behavior is a compiler > bug. > One should be able to pass in implicitly constructed objects by > reference into these statically initialized arrays of structs... C++ > should dictate that the lifetime of these objects then are controlled by > the construction and destruction of the structs in the arrays... when > the structs are destructed, then the object with reference should be > destructed... > > Or am I incorrect?
It would take someone with a much greater knowledge of the C++ standard than I to comment on that. But ... how can you even suggest that a Microsoft product has a bug in it! :-) > I'll give a try to reproduce what you're seeing Paul, and we will have a > fix for it. > Is this fixed if the VS6 fix is applied to VS2008? is that what you did > to fix this issue? > Yes... basically I hacked up the file so that if _MSC was defined to use const char * instead of const UtlString & ... It was not pretty! I have not comprehensively tested it at this point. > If so, then I think we should probably go with that approach (using > const char* instead of const UtlString&) unconditionally. Are there any other ramifications? I did not delve to deeply into what functionality was lost as a result. Regards Paul _______________________________________________ sipxtapi-dev mailing list sipxtapi-dev@list.sipfoundry.org List Archive: http://list.sipfoundry.org/archive/sipxtapi-dev/
