This is the mail archive of the
gcc-prs@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: c++/3585: wrong function overload resolution?
- To: gdr at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Subject: Re: c++/3585: wrong function overload resolution?
- From: Martin Sebor <sebor at roguewave dot com>
- Date: 6 Jul 2001 16:56:01 -0000
- Cc: gcc-prs at gcc dot gnu dot org,
- Reply-To: Martin Sebor <sebor at roguewave dot com>
The following reply was made to PR c++/3585; it has been noted by GNATS.
From: Martin Sebor <sebor@roguewave.com>
To: gcc-gnats@gcc.gnu.org
Cc:
Subject: Re: c++/3585: wrong function overload resolution?
Date: Fri, 06 Jul 2001 10:53:13 -0600
gawrilow@math.tu-berlin.de wrote:
>
> >Number: 3585
> >Category: c++
> >Synopsis: wrong function overload resolution?
...
> >Description:
> Let's consider the following fragment:
>
> void f(int& x) { } // #1
>
> void f(int x) { } // #2
>
> int temp() { return 0; }
>
> int main() {
> int var=0;
> f(var); // should resolve to #1
> f(temp()); // resolves to #2
> }
>
> The gcc rejects f(var) as ambiguous reasoning that #1 and #2
> were equally good. IMHO, resolving to #2 includes an
> lvalue-to-rvalue conversion, where #1 incurs an identity
> conversion, thus being better. Am I missing something?
I think so: Reference Binding is considered the Identity conversion
(see 13.3.3.1.4, p1).
>
> The things become yet prettier as we move to templates.
> Let's change the definitions of f's to the following:
>
> template <class T> void f(T& x) { } // #1
> template <class T> void f(T x) { } // #2
>
> gcc 3.0 still considers this ambiguous, while 2.95 has
> chosen #1 for f(var) without any complains.
The call to f (var) is also ambiguous here. Argument deduction
finds [T = int] in both cases and you're left with the same as
above.
>
> Thus the final questions: who understands the overload
> resolution rules better: gcc 3.0, gcc 2.95,
> me (obviously not!), or somebody else?
I'd say 3.0 is correct here and 2.95 is in error. Most other
compilers agree.
>
> How could I otherwise distinct between rvalue and lvalue
> arguments to an overloaded function, without using
> f(const T&) ?
Here's how you can tell an lvalue from an rvalue:
bool is_lvalue (...) { return false; }
template <class T>
bool is_lvalue (T&) { return true; }
Regards
Martin