Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.lang.c++ > #11260 > unrolled thread

Odd error I can't seem to recreate

Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.c++

Contents

  Odd error I can't seem to recreate Noah Roberts <roberts.noah@gmail.com> - 2011-11-04 11:52 -0700
    Re: Odd error I can't seem to recreate Victor Bazarov <v.bazarov@comcast.invalid> - 2011-11-04 15:49 -0400
      Re: Odd error I can't seem to recreate Noah Roberts <roberts.noah@gmail.com> - 2011-11-04 12:58 -0700
        Re: Odd error I can't seem to recreate Richard Damon <news.x.richarddamon@xoxy.net> - 2011-11-04 16:15 -0400
    Re: Odd error I can't seem to recreate "Gennaro Prota" <gennaro.prota@gmail.com> - 2011-11-04 21:03 +0100
      Re: Odd error I can't seem to recreate Noah Roberts <roberts.noah@gmail.com> - 2011-11-04 13:07 -0700
        Re: Odd error I can't seem to recreate Victor Bazarov <v.bazarov@comcast.invalid> - 2011-11-04 16:43 -0400
          Re: Odd error I can't seem to recreate Noah Roberts <roberts.noah@gmail.com> - 2011-11-04 13:56 -0700
            Re: Odd error I can't seem to recreate "Gennaro Prota" <name.surname@gmail.com> - 2011-11-04 22:16 +0100
      Re: Odd error I can't seem to recreate "Gennaro Prota" <gennaro.prota@gmail.com> - 2011-11-04 21:16 +0100
    Re: Odd error I can't seem to recreate Noah Roberts <roberts.noah@gmail.com> - 2011-11-04 13:15 -0700
      Re: Odd error I can't seem to recreate Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-11-05 12:00 +1300
    Re: Odd error I can't seem to recreate "Alf P. Steinbach" <alf.p.steinbach+usenet@gmail.com> - 2011-11-05 18:48 +0100
      Re: Odd error I can't seem to recreate "Gennaro Prota" <name.surname@gmail.com> - 2011-11-05 22:35 +0100

#11260 — Odd error I can't seem to recreate

In a significant code base I'm running into this problem:

This works:
test_service service;
std::string result = job->run_query(service);

This does not.:
std::string result = job->run_query(test_service());

the run_query function expects a const reference to test_service's
base class:

struct location_job
{
	virtual ~location_job() {}

	virtual std::string run_query(location_service const& service) const
= 0;
};

The error I get from g++4.1.2 is:

pipe_processor_test.cpp:142: error: no matching function for call to
âtest_service::test_service(test_service)â
../inc/test_service.h:27: note: candidates are:
test_service::test_service(bool)
../inc/test_service.h:7: note:
test_service::test_service(test_service&)

The bool constructor is made by me, but the non-const copy constructor
is the compiler's.  Line 7 is the opening brace for the class.

I can't make any sense of this.  Does anyone have ANY idea what might
be going on so I can try to narrow it down and create a minimal
example to get better help?  The attempts I've made so far work
fine.

Under what conditions in which the first could work might the second
not when the parameter is const ref?  I can't think of any.

Thanks for any help that can be provided.  I know it's a reach.

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#11262

On 11/4/2011 2:52 PM, Noah Roberts wrote:
> In a significant code base I'm running into this problem:
>
> This works:
> test_service service;
> std::string result = job->run_query(service);
>
> This does not.:
> std::string result = job->run_query(test_service());
>
> the run_query function expects a const reference to test_service's
> base class:
>
> struct location_job
> {
> 	virtual ~location_job() {}
>
> 	virtual std::string run_query(location_service const&  service) const
> = 0;
> };

Seems like there is some kind of relationship between 'location_service' 
and 'test_service', but you decided to omit it.  Perhaps you could 
elaborate?  Is 'test_service' derived from 'location_service' as private 
or protected?

> The error I get from g++4.1.2 is:
>
> pipe_processor_test.cpp:142: error: no matching function for call to
> âtest_service::test_service(test_service)â
> ../inc/test_service.h:27: note: candidates are:
> test_service::test_service(bool)
> ../inc/test_service.h:7: note:
> test_service::test_service(test_service&)

Is there the default c-tor for 'test_service'?  I presume there is.

So, 'test_service' copy constructor takes a non-const reference.  To 
initialize the argument to your 'run_query', a temporary of type 
'location_service' has to be created (or has to be able to be created), 
and I am guessing there is no conversion that the compiler can use.

When you supply a "real" object, not a temporary, the derived-to base 
conversion is used, and all is well.

> The bool constructor is made by me, but the non-const copy constructor
> is the compiler's.

What???  Why would the compiler create a non-const copy c-tor?  Or, 
rather, what have you done to tell it to create that particular form of 
the copy c-tor?

 >  Line 7 is the opening brace for the class.
>
> I can't make any sense of this.  Does anyone have ANY idea what might
> be going on so I can try to narrow it down and create a minimal
> example to get better help?  The attempts I've made so far work
> fine.
>
> Under what conditions in which the first could work might the second
> not when the parameter is const ref?  I can't think of any.
>
> Thanks for any help that can be provided.  I know it's a reach.

Please try to narrow it down by copying your classes into a separate 
module and gradually removing all that is irrelevant, while still trying 
to repeat the compiler behavior.  Then post the remaining source, which 
by that time should be no larger than this:

struct loc {
    loc() {}
    loc(loc&) {}
};

struct test : loc {
    test(test& t) : loc(t) {}
    test() : loc() {}
};

void foo(const loc&);

int main()
{
     foo(test()); // and here you should get an error

     test t;
     foo(t);
}

I don't get the error with Comeau online for this program, but (a) I was 
just guessing, and (b) that is a different compiler.

V
-- 
I do not respond to top-posted replies, please don't ask

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#11264

On Nov 4, 12:49 pm, Victor Bazarov <v.baza...@comcast.invalid> wrote:
> On 11/4/2011 2:52 PM, Noah Roberts wrote:

> > The bool constructor is made by me, but the non-const copy constructor
> > is the compiler's.
>
> What???  Why would the compiler create a non-const copy c-tor?  Or,
> rather, what have you done to tell it to create that particular form of
> the copy c-tor?
>

Yes, that bothers me a great deal as well, but for some reason g++
seems to be making non-const copy constructors by default.  Here's the
class declarations:

struct location_service // needs to be at least mockable.
{
	virtual ~location_service() {}

	enum coord_format { DMS, DECIMAL };
	enum location_tech { LEAST, MOST, CELL, AGPS };

	typedef std::auto_ptr<service_response> response_t;

	// pure virtual calls...
};

#include "location_service.h"

struct test_service : location_service
{

        // overrides of inherited virtuals...

	test_service();
	test_service(bool sleeper);
	~test_service();
private:
	struct impl;
	std::auto_ptr<impl> pimpl;
};

No declaration of copy constructor anywhere.  It's not the first time
I've seen it and I'm assuming it's some sort of quirk/bug in g++
4.1.2.

Switches are:

g++ -g $(INCLUDES) $(LIBFLAGS) $(WIN32_DEF) -DTEST -Wall -Werror -
pedantic -Wno-long-long

include flags are just a bunch of -I args.  For libs I do a couple odd
things:

-Wl,-Bstatic $(CPPUNIT_LIBS) $(LOG_LIBS) -Wl,-Bdynamic -lpthread

But not THAT odd...

So I don't know WTF g++ is doing that for.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#11266

On 11/4/11 3:58 PM, Noah Roberts wrote:
> On Nov 4, 12:49 pm, Victor Bazarov<v.baza...@comcast.invalid>  wrote:
>> On 11/4/2011 2:52 PM, Noah Roberts wrote:
>
>>> The bool constructor is made by me, but the non-const copy constructor
>>> is the compiler's.
>>
>> What???  Why would the compiler create a non-const copy c-tor?  Or,
>> rather, what have you done to tell it to create that particular form of
>> the copy c-tor?
>>
>
> Yes, that bothers me a great deal as well, but for some reason g++
> seems to be making non-const copy constructors by default.  Here's the
> class declarations:
>
...
> struct test_service : location_service
> {
>
>          // overrides of inherited virtuals...
>
> 	test_service();
> 	test_service(bool sleeper);
> 	~test_service();
> private:
> 	struct impl;
> 	std::auto_ptr<impl>  pimpl;
> };
>
> No declaration of copy constructor anywhere.  It's not the first time
> I've seen it and I'm assuming it's some sort of quirk/bug in g++
> 4.1.2.
>
Note that auto_ptr has a non-const copy constructor, as copying an 
auto_ptr changes the source auto pointer. Therefore any class that has 
an auto_ptr member will by default have a non-const copy constructor, as 
it can't make a const copy constructor.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#11263

On Fri, 04 Nov 2011 19:52:56 +0100, Noah Roberts <roberts.noah@gmail.com>  
wrote:

> In a significant code base I'm running into this problem:
>
> This works:
> test_service service;
> std::string result = job->run_query(service);
>
> This does not.:
> std::string result = job->run_query(test_service());
>
> the run_query function expects a const reference to test_service's
> base class:
>
> struct location_job
> {
> 	virtual ~location_job() {}
>
> 	virtual std::string run_query(location_service const& service) const
> = 0;
> };
>
> The error I get from g++4.1.2 is:
>
> pipe_processor_test.cpp:142: error: no matching function for call to
> âtest_service::test_service(test_service)â
> ../inc/test_service.h:27: note: candidates are:
> test_service::test_service(bool)
> ../inc/test_service.h:7: note:
> test_service::test_service(test_service&)
>
> The bool constructor is made by me, but the non-const copy constructor
> is the compiler's.  Line 7 is the opening brace for the class.
>
> I can't make any sense of this.  Does anyone have ANY idea what might
> be going on so I can try to narrow it down and create a minimal
> example to get better help?  The attempts I've made so far work
> fine.
>
> Under what conditions in which the first could work might the second
> not when the parameter is const ref?  I can't think of any.
>
> Thanks for any help that can be provided.  I know it's a reach.

Try looking at the copy constructors of test_service's members:

- the direct and virtual base classes
- the non-static data members

At least one of them should have a copy constructor without
const-qualification on the first parameter, which is why the
compiler-generated copy constructor of test_service lacks it as
well.

-- 
   Gennaro Prota         |           name.surname gmail.com
     Breeze C++ (preview): <http://sourceforge.net/projects/breeze/>
     Do you need expertise in C++?   I'm available.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#11265

On Nov 4, 1:03 pm, "Gennaro Prota" <gennaro.pr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 04 Nov 2011 19:52:56 +0100, Noah Roberts <roberts.n...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > In a significant code base I'm running into this problem:
>
> > This works:
> > test_service service;
> > std::string result = job->run_query(service);
>
> > This does not.:
> > std::string result = job->run_query(test_service());
>
> > the run_query function expects a const reference to test_service's
> > base class:
>
> > struct location_job
> > {
> >    virtual ~location_job() {}
>
> >    virtual std::string run_query(location_service const& service) const
> > = 0;
> > };
>
> > The error I get from g++4.1.2 is:
>
> > pipe_processor_test.cpp:142: error: no matching function for call to
> > âtest_service::test_service(test_service)â
> > ../inc/test_service.h:27: note: candidates are:
> > test_service::test_service(bool)
> > ../inc/test_service.h:7: note:
> > test_service::test_service(test_service&)
>
> > The bool constructor is made by me, but the non-const copy constructor
> > is the compiler's.  Line 7 is the opening brace for the class.
>
> > I can't make any sense of this.  Does anyone have ANY idea what might
> > be going on so I can try to narrow it down and create a minimal
> > example to get better help?  The attempts I've made so far work
> > fine.
>
> > Under what conditions in which the first could work might the second
> > not when the parameter is const ref?  I can't think of any.
>
> > Thanks for any help that can be provided.  I know it's a reach.
>
> Try looking at the copy constructors of test_service's members:
>
> - the direct and virtual base classes
> - the non-static data members
>
> At least one of them should have a copy constructor without
> const-qualification on the first parameter, which is why the
> compiler-generated copy constructor of test_service lacks it as
> well.

Thanks.  This does appear to be the main issue.  There is an auto_ptr
in the test_service.

I recreated the problem:

cat wtf.cpp
#include <memory>

struct base
{
        virtual ~base() {}
};

struct derived : base
{
  std::auto_ptr<int> i;
  derived() : i() {}
//private:
  //derived(derived const&);
};

struct base;
struct base2
{
        virtual ~base2() {}
        virtual void fun(base const&) const = 0;
};
struct derived2 : base2
{
        void fun(base const&) const {}
};

struct base3
{
        virtual ~base3() {}
        virtual std::auto_ptr<base2> get() const = 0;
};
struct derived3 : base3
{
        std::auto_ptr<base2> get() const { return
std::auto_ptr<base2>(new derived2); }
};

int main()
{
        derived3 d3;
        std::auto_ptr<base2> b2 = d3.get();
        b2->fun(derived());
}


Now I get all the errors I don't expect that are giving me crap in the
original code:

g++ wtf.cpp
wtf.cpp: In function âint main()â:
wtf.cpp:42: error: no matching function for call to
âderived::derived(derived)â
wtf.cpp:9: note: candidates are: derived::derived(derived&)

Victor said:
So, 'test_service' copy constructor takes a non-const reference.  To
initialize the argument to your 'run_query', a temporary of type
'location_service' has to be created (or has to be able to be
created),
and I am guessing there is no conversion that the compiler can use.
.................

As I understood it, because it takes a non-const reference the
temporary created by the "test_service()" call should be directly
used, rather than a copy of it attempted.  Why is it necessary to make
a temporary of 'location_service', or 'base' in the above code?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#11268

On 11/4/2011 4:07 PM, Noah Roberts wrote:
> [.. seems that auto_ptr is to blame ..]
> I recreated the problem:
>
> cat wtf.cpp
> #include<memory>
>
> struct base
> {
>          virtual ~base() {}
> };
>
> struct derived : base
> {
>    std::auto_ptr<int>  i;
>    derived() : i() {}
> //private:
>    //derived(derived const&);
> };
>
> struct base;
> struct base2
> {
>          virtual ~base2() {}
>          virtual void fun(base const&) const = 0;
> };
> struct derived2 : base2
> {
>          void fun(base const&) const {}
> };
>
> struct base3
> {
>          virtual ~base3() {}
>          virtual std::auto_ptr<base2>  get() const = 0;
> };
> struct derived3 : base3
> {
>          std::auto_ptr<base2>  get() const { return
> std::auto_ptr<base2>(new derived2); }
> };
>
> int main()
> {
>          derived3 d3;
>          std::auto_ptr<base2>  b2 = d3.get();
>          b2->fun(derived());
> }

Comeau online compiles it without even a blink.  So does VC++ 2010 on my 
machine.

> Now I get all the errors I don't expect that are giving me crap in the
> original code:
>
> g++ wtf.cpp
> wtf.cpp: In function âint main()â:
> wtf.cpp:42: error: no matching function for call to
> âderived::derived(derived)â
> wtf.cpp:9: note: candidates are: derived::derived(derived&)
>
> Victor said:
> So, 'test_service' copy constructor takes a non-const reference.  To
> initialize the argument to your 'run_query', a temporary of type
> 'location_service' has to be created (or has to be able to be
> created),
> and I am guessing there is no conversion that the compiler can use.
> .................
>
> As I understood it, because it takes a non-const reference the
> temporary created by the "test_service()" call should be directly
> used, rather than a copy of it attempted.  Why is it necessary to make
> a temporary of 'location_service', or 'base' in the above code?

I may just as well be wrong here.

So far I failed to reproduce your issue with another compiler.  I don't 
have access to gcc/g++ at this time.

Let's drop the auto_ptr member and try declaring our own copy-c-tor that 
takes a non-const ref...

I've dropped the 'i' member from 'derived' and instead added a copy 
c-tor with a non-const ref argument, both Comeau online and VC++ still 
compiled it.

Something is funky with g++, I am guessing.  Can it compile this:

    struct base
    {
       virtual ~base() {}
    };

    struct derived : base
    {
       derived() : base() {}
       derived(derived& d) : base(d) {}
    };

    void fun(base const& b) { return; }

    int main()
    {
       derived d;
       fun(d);
       fun(derived());
    }

?

V
-- 
I do not respond to top-posted replies, please don't ask

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#11269

On Nov 4, 1:43 pm, Victor Bazarov <v.baza...@comcast.invalid> wrote:

> Something is funky with g++, I am guessing.  Can it compile this:
>
>     struct base
>     {
>        virtual ~base() {}
>     };
>
>     struct derived : base
>     {
>        derived() : base() {}
>        derived(derived& d) : base(d) {}
>     };
>
>     void fun(base const& b) { return; }
>
>     int main()
>     {
>        derived d;
>        fun(d);
>        fun(derived());
>     }

Nope.  It complains about the second fun call.  No matching function
for call to derived::derived(derived).

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#11270

On Fri, 04 Nov 2011 21:56:29 +0100, Noah Roberts <roberts.noah@gmail.com>  
wrote:

> On Nov 4, 1:43 pm, Victor Bazarov <v.baza...@comcast.invalid> wrote:
>
>> Something is funky with g++, I am guessing.  Can it compile this:
>>
>>     struct base
>>     {
>>        virtual ~base() {}
>>     };
>>
>>     struct derived : base
>>     {
>>        derived() : base() {}
>>        derived(derived& d) : base(d) {}
>>     };
>>
>>     void fun(base const& b) { return; }
>>
>>     int main()
>>     {
>>        derived d;
>>        fun(d);
>>        fun(derived());
>>     }
>
> Nope.  It complains about the second fun call.  No matching function
> for call to derived::derived(derived).

That's correct in C++03. The restriction has been lifted in C++11.

-- 
   Gennaro Prota         |           name.surname gmail.com
     Breeze C++ (preview): <http://sourceforge.net/projects/breeze/>
     Do you need expertise in C++?   I'm available.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#11267

On Fri, 04 Nov 2011 21:03:55 +0100, Gennaro Prota  
<gennaro.prota@gmail.com> wrote:

> Try looking at the copy constructors of test_service's members:
>
> - the direct and virtual base classes
> - the non-static data members
>
> At least one of them should have a copy constructor without
> const-qualification on the first parameter, which is why the
> compiler-generated copy constructor of test_service lacks it as
> well.

Poorly worded, sorry (although it shouldn't affect
understandability). Should have been:

Try looking at the copy constructors of test_service's:

- direct and virtual base classes
- non-static data member types (their elements in case of
   arrays)

-- 
   Gennaro Prota         |           name.surname gmail.com
     Breeze C++ (preview): <http://sourceforge.net/projects/breeze/>
     Do you need expertise in C++?   I'm available.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#11271

On Nov 4, 11:52 am, Noah Roberts <roberts.n...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Under what conditions in which the first could work might the second
> not when the parameter is const ref?  I can't think of any.

Here's a further revision of the problem code:

 cat wtf.cpp
#include <memory>
#include <iostream>

struct base
{
        virtual ~base() {}
        virtual void f() const = 0;
};

struct derived : base
{
#ifdef HUH
private:
  derived(derived const&);
#endif
public:
        derived() {}
        void f() const { std::cout << "derived::f() \n"; }
};

struct base;
struct base2
{
        virtual ~base2() {}
        virtual void fun(base const&) const = 0;
};
struct derived2 : base2
{
        void fun(base const& b) const { b.f(); }
};

struct base3
{
        virtual ~base3() {}
        virtual std::auto_ptr<base2> get() const = 0;
};
struct derived3 : base3
{
        std::auto_ptr<base2> get() const { return
std::auto_ptr<base2>(new derived2); }
};

int main()
{
        derived3 d3;
        std::auto_ptr<base2> b2 = d3.get();
        b2->fun(derived());
}

The result of compilation and run without -DHUH:

$ g++ wtf.cpp
$ ./a.out
derived::f()

The result with -DHUH:
$ g++ -DHUH wtf.cpp
wtf.cpp: In function âint main()â:
wtf.cpp:14: error: âderived::derived(const derived&)â is private
wtf.cpp:47: error: within this context

So it appears that the problem is with the temporary being created,
and that I don't understand.  As far as I knew, const reference
allowed you to use the initially created temporary directly.  Where's
the standard text that explains why it's doing this?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#11272

On 11/ 5/11 09:15 AM, Noah Roberts wrote:
> On Nov 4, 11:52 am, Noah Roberts<roberts.n...@gmail.com>  wrote:
>
>> Under what conditions in which the first could work might the second
>> not when the parameter is const ref?  I can't think of any.
>
> Here's a further revision of the problem code:
>
<snip>
>
> The result of compilation and run without -DHUH:
>
> $ g++ wtf.cpp
> $ ./a.out
> derived::f()
>
> The result with -DHUH:
> $ g++ -DHUH wtf.cpp
> wtf.cpp: In function âint main()â:
> wtf.cpp:14: error: âderived::derived(const derived&)â is private
> wtf.cpp:47: error: within this context
>
> So it appears that the problem is with the temporary being created,
> and that I don't understand.  As far as I knew, const reference
> allowed you to use the initially created temporary directly.  Where's
> the standard text that explains why it's doing this?

Compiler bug?  It compiles fine with gcc 4.5.1.

-- 
Ian Collins

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#11276

On 04.11.2011 19:52, Noah Roberts wrote:
> In a significant code base I'm running into this problem:
>
> This works:
> test_service service;
> std::string result = job->run_query(service);
> This does not.:
> std::string result = job->run_query(test_service());

At this point the service object has been destroyed.

And perhaps the query is running in the background?

Oh, I see below that the problem isn't the obvious asynchronous one that 
I thought it was.

Or perhaps the potential problem I mentioned above comes in addition.

OK then, on to the real problem...


> the run_query function expects a const reference to test_service's
> base class:
>
> struct location_job
> {
> 	virtual ~location_job() {}
>
> 	virtual std::string run_query(location_service const&  service) const
> = 0;
> };
>
> The error I get from g++4.1.2 is:
>
> pipe_processor_test.cpp:142: error: no matching function for call to
> âtest_service::test_service(test_service)â
> ../inc/test_service.h:27: note: candidates are:
> test_service::test_service(bool)
> ../inc/test_service.h:7: note:
> test_service::test_service(test_service&)

Well, first note that the formal argument is of type `location_service 
const&`, while the actual argument is of type `test_service`.

Assumming that `test_service` is derived from `location_service`, or is 
the same class.

Then apparently g++ abides by C++98 rules that require an accessible 
copy constructor, because C++98 allowed the compiler to introduce any 
number of temporaries. This was fixed in C++03. But with C++98 rules, a 
copy constructor must be accessible and the result is "as if" it's used, 
when you pass a temporary to T const&.

And the test_service copy constructor has non-const formal argument,

   test_service&

Hence it cannot be used for copying the actual argument.


> The bool constructor is made by me, but the non-const copy constructor
> is the compiler's.  Line 7 is the opening brace for the class.

It may have been generated due to presence of e.g. std::auto_ptr as member.

Any data member or base class that has T(T&) forces that.

It couldn't (logically) be any other way.


> I can't make any sense of this.  Does anyone have ANY idea what might
> be going on so I can try to narrow it down and create a minimal
> example to get better help?  The attempts I've made so far work
> fine.

Yes, see above.


> Under what conditions in which the first could work might the second
> not when the parameter is const ref?  I can't think of any.
>
> Thanks for any help that can be provided.  I know it's a reach.


Cheers & hth.,

- Alf

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#11278

On Sat, 05 Nov 2011 18:48:15 +0100, Alf P. Steinbach  
<alf.p.steinbach+usenet@gmail.com> wrote:

> Then apparently g++ abides by C++98 rules that require an accessible  
> copy constructor, because C++98 allowed the compiler to introduce any  
> number of temporaries. This was fixed in C++03.

I don't have the standard handy but I'm pretty sure that this
was changed *after* C++03 (I think it all began with core issue
391).

-- 
   Gennaro Prota         |           name.surname gmail.com
     Breeze C++ (preview): <http://sourceforge.net/projects/breeze/>
     Do you need expertise in C++?   I'm available.

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.c++

csiph-web