🚀 go-pugleaf

The following program contains apparently legal code, but g++ 1.34.1
(on a Sun3) rejects it with compile-time errors.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
// Check that it is legal to take the address of an overloaded
// operator (which is class-name-qualified), even if that operator
// could be either a unary or a binary operator, so long as the
// operator designator is unambiguous when class-name-qualified
// (i.e. only one form is declared for the class).
//
// Note that the & operator may be applied to unambiguous qualified
// method names.  It seems that this privledge should extend likewise
// to unambigous qualified operator designators.

#include "Testinc.h"

class base {
	int field;
public:
	int operator+ (base b);
	int operator- ();
};

int test ()
{
	&base::operator+;	// compile-time error using g++ 1.34.1
	&base::operator-;	// compile-time error using g++ 1.34.1
	return 0;
}

int base::operator+ (base b)
{
	b.field = 7;
	return 0;
}

int base::operator- ()
{
	return 0;
}
------------------------------------------------------------------------
g++ -Wall -Wwrite-strings -v -S a023.C
g++ version 1.34.1.1
 /usr/local/src/lib/sun3/g++-1.34.1.1/gcc-cpp -+ -v -undef -D__GNU__ -D__GNUG__ -Dmc68000 -Dsun -Dunix -D__mc68000__ -D__sun__ -D__unix__ -Wall -D__HAVE_68881__ -Dmc68020 a023.C /tmp/cca02641.cpp
GNU CPP version 1.34.1.1
 /usr/local/src/lib/sun3/g++-1.34.1.1/gcc-c++ /tmp/cca02641.cpp -quiet -dumpbase a023.C -Wall -Wwrite-strings -noreg -version -o a023.s
GNU C++ version 1.34.1.1 (68k, MIT syntax) compiled by GNU C version 1.33.
In function int test ():
a023.C:22: invalid lvalue in unary `&'
a023.C:23: invalid lvalue in unary `&'