I wonder why gcc is able to compile it. :-)
Well considering that the following also yields different results on MSVC7.1 and gcc 3.2/3.3 I would wonder if there is a problem with one of the compilers #include <iostream> #include <boost/bind.hpp> struct X { void f() {std::cout << "None" << std::endl;} void f() const {std::cout << "const" << std::endl;} }; template <typename T> void run( void (T::*f_)(), T& t_) {(t_.*f_)();} template <typename T> void run( void (T::*f_)() const, T const& t_) {(t_.*f_)();} int main() { X x; run(&X::f,x); boost::bind(&X::f,_1)(x); }
Do you really have a volatile member function somewhere? I thought that they were "officially" worthless.
Well, that is a different matter. If one might want to follow Andrei's suggestion of using volatile to encapsulate synchronisation then they are still worthwhile. (CUJ February 2001).