This is the mail archive of the gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org mailing list for the GCC project.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: C++ PATCH/RFC for c++/87109, wrong overload with ref-qualifiers


On Wed, Aug 29, 2018 at 8:03 PM, Marek Polacek <polacek@redhat.com> wrote:
> I've now gotten to the point where I question the validity of this PR, so it's
> probably a good time to stop and ask for some advice.
>
> As discussed in <https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2018-08/msg01607.html>, we
> choose the wrong overload for f1:
>
> struct C { };
> struct A {
>   operator C() &;
>   operator C() &&;
> };
>
> C f1(A a)
> {
>    return a; // should call operator C()&, but calls operator C()&&
> }
>
> Since we're returning a local variable, we know it's about to be destroyed,
> so even though it's got a name, not for very much longer, so we activate move
> semantics.  So we perform overload resolution with 'a' turned into
> *NON_LVALUE_EXPR<(A&) &a>, an xvalue.  We need to convert 'a' from A to C,
> which is taking place in build_user_type_conversion_1.  It will see two
> cadidates:
>
>   A::operator C() &&
>   A::operator C() &
>
> when adding these candidates in add_function_candidate we process the
> ref-qualifiers by tweaking the type of the implicit object parameter by turning
> it into a reference type.  Then we create an implicit conversion sequence
> for converting the type of the argument to the type of the parameter,
> so A to A&.  That succeeds in the first case (an xvalue binding to an rvalue
> reference) but fails in the second case (an xvalue binding to an lvalue
> reference).  And thus we end up using the first overload.
>
> But why is this invalid, again?  [class.copy.elision] says "or if the type of
> the first parameter of the selected constructor is not an rvalue reference to
> the object's type (possibly cv-qualified), overload resolution is performed
> again, considering the object as an lvalue." but I don't see how that applies
> here.  (Constructors can't have ref-qualifiers anyway.)
>
> Thoughts?

Where that rule comes in is when we choose the constructor for C:
since we've already called operator C()&&, we choose C(C&&), which
does not have a first parameter of "rvalue reference to cv A", so it
should be rejected.

Jason


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]