Operator overloading compilation issue in GCC

Just porting a small project of mine from Windows to Mac and I've hit a compile issue I'm a bit confused about.

I used CMake to build an XCode project and when I try and compile my maths library (of which I'm using operator overloading in my vector class) I'm getting errors such as this output for all the overloaded operators:

Code:

---

AmVector2.h:22: error: extra qualification 'AmberMaths::AmVector2::' on member 'operator+'

---

Here's the declaration and implementation of the above function:

Code:

---

AmVector2 AmVector2::operator+(AmVector2& rVec);

AmVector2 AmVector2::operator+(AmberMaths::AmVector2 &rVec)
{
        AmVector2 vec;
        vec.Set(x + rVec.x, y + rVec.y);

        return vec;
}

---

It compiled fine in MSVC's compiler but GCC obviously isn't happy with something.

Post more code, why the definition contains scoped parameter? How can we know which line is 22?


EDIT:

Code:

---

AmVector2 AmVector2::operator+(AmVector2& rVec);

---

Try:

Code:

---

AmVector2 operator+(AmVector2& rVec);

---

I've removed the top seven lines from both files as that contains identifying information :)

AmVector2.h:

Code:

---

#ifndef _AM_VECTOR_2_H
#define _AM_VECTOR_2_H

namespace AmberMaths
{
        class AmVector2
        {
        public:
                AmVector2();
                AmVector2(float x, float y);
                ~AmVector2();

                void Set(float x, float y);

                AmVector2 AmVector2::operator+(AmVector2& rVec);
                AmVector2 AmVector2::operator-(AmVector2& rVec);
                void AmVector2::operator+=(AmVector2& rVec);
                void AmVector2::operator-=(AmVector2& rVec);
                AmVector2 AmVector2::operator*(float fVal);
                void AmVector2::operator*=(float fVal);

                void Normalise();

                float GetLength();

                float GetX() { return x; }
                float GetY() { return y; }

        private:
                float x;
                float y;

        };
}

#endif        //_AM_VECTOR_2_H

---

AmVector2.cpp:

Code:

---

#include "AmberMaths.h"
#include "AmVector2.h"

using namespace AmberMaths;

AmVector2::AmVector2()
{
        Set(0.0f, 0.0f);
}

AmVector2::AmVector2(float x, float y)
{
        Set(x, y);
}

AmVector2::~AmVector2()
{
}

void AmVector2::Set(float x, float y)
{
        this->x = x;
        this->y = y;
}

AmVector2 AmVector2::operator+(AmberMaths::AmVector2 &rVec)
{
        AmVector2 vec;
        vec.Set(x + rVec.x, y + rVec.y);

        return vec;
}

AmVector2 AmVector2::operator-(AmberMaths::AmVector2 &rVec)
{
        AmVector2 vec;
        vec.Set(x - rVec.x, y - rVec.y);

        return vec;
}

void AmVector2::operator+=(AmberMaths::AmVector2 &rVec)
{
        Set(x + rVec.x, y + rVec.y);
}

void AmVector2::operator-=(AmberMaths::AmVector2 &rVec)
{
        Set(x - rVec.x, y - rVec.y);
}

AmVector2 AmVector2::operator*(float fVal)
{
        AmVector2 vec;
        vec.Set(x * fVal, y * fVal);

        return vec;
}

void AmVector2::operator*=(float fVal)
{
        Set(x * fVal, y * fVal);
}

void AmVector2::Normalise()
{
        float fLength = GetLength();
        x /= fLength;
        y /= fLength;
}

float AmVector2::GetLength()
{
        return sqrt((x*x) + (y*y));
}

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kmdv

Try:

Code:

---

AmVector2 operator+(AmVector2& rVec);

---

---

Actually, yeah. Makes sense. There was absolutely no requirement to have AmVector2:: on any of those. I wish I knew why I put that there. This is code I wrote years ago which I'm attempting to bring up to date :)

You should pass parameters by const-reference (if you do not change them ofc):

Code:

---

AmVector2 AmVector2::operator+(const AmVector2& rVec);

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kmdv

You should pass parameters by const-reference (if you do not change them ofc):

Code:

---

AmVector2 AmVector2::operator+(const AmVector2& rVec);

---

---

Yeah, I know. That's one of the changes I'm wanting to implement. I don't think there's a single instance of the word "const" in this entire code. I was a naive young coder once :)

In the class definition, you don't need to prefix the function name (in this case operator+) with the name of the function. See kmdv's first post.