Re: Bug#118087: operation behavior not a bug...

["John R. Daily" <jdaily@progeny.com>]

At (time_t)712734125 "Martin v. Loewis" wrote:

> As you can see from PR#3747, this apparently comes from ptrdiff_t
> being signed on some architecture and unsigned on another. What part
> of the explanation in this PR is unclear to you?

I understand (more or less) why the compiler finds ambiguity.

What I do not understand is why the compiler does _not_ find
ambiguity when the C++ class header is slimmed down to just the
necessary parts: the operator overload and a constructor.

Either it's ambiguous, or it isn't, but it shouldn't be both on
the same architecture (hppa), with the same compiler (g++ 3.0.2),
and essentially the same code.

Please see the original test code attached to the Debian bug
report. One header file provokes the compiler error, but the
other doesn't.

--
John R. Daily                                    Progeny Linux Systems
Consultant                                          jdaily@progeny.com
               Master of the ephemeral epiphany