This is the mail archive of the
gcc-prs@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: c++/8279: REGRESSION: failure to find a matching function in
- From: Joe Buck <jbuck at synopsys dot com>
- To: paolo at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Cc: gcc-prs at gcc dot gnu dot org,
- Date: 21 Oct 2002 19:46:02 -0000
- Subject: Re: c++/8279: REGRESSION: failure to find a matching function in
- Reply-to: Joe Buck <jbuck at synopsys dot com>
The following reply was made to PR c++/8279; it has been noted by GNATS.
From: Joe Buck <jbuck@synopsys.com>
To: pcarlini@unitus.it (Paolo Carlini)
Cc: gcc-gnats@gcc.gnu.org, gcc-prs@gcc.gnu.org, Joe.Buck@synopsys.COM,
gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org, paolo@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: Re: c++/8279: REGRESSION: failure to find a matching function in
Date: Mon, 21 Oct 2002 12:37:49 -0700 (PDT)
Paolo writes:
> I'm tempted to agree with Wolfgang...
While I still want to see the input from the comp.std.c++ folks, I've
reduced the priority of this PR to non-critical/medium, since it's
arguable that this not be considered a regression (even though the
program worked in 2.95.x) due to the honor-std issues, and because there
is a workaround.
Even if gcc's behavior is correct, the diagnostic is puzzling:
PREFIX/include/c++/3.2.1/bits/stream_iterator.h:141: no
match for `std::basic_ostream<char, std::char_traits<char> >& << const
std::pair<std::string, unsigned int>&' operator
when there is what appears to be an exact match. Strategies to come up
with a better diagnostic (e.g. tell the user why the function s/he
intended to use isn't accepted) would be wlcome.