This is the mail archive of the
gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
[Bug c++/36435] New: Partial ordering of explicit specialization should include return type
- From: "jhs at edg dot com" <gcc-bugzilla at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- To: gcc-bugs at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: 4 Jun 2008 16:28:31 -0000
- Subject: [Bug c++/36435] New: Partial ordering of explicit specialization should include return type
- Reply-to: gcc-bugzilla at gcc dot gnu dot org
This example results in an ambiguity on the line marked "!!!:
ex.c:8: error: ambiguous template specialization ?to_y<char>? for ?Y<char,
void*, int> X::to_y()?
This is currently rejected by g++, MSVC, and EDG, but we (EDG) believe it
should be accepted.
14.8.2.4 says that in contexts other than a call, the complete function type
should be used for partial ordering purposes.
template<class T, class U, class V> struct Y { };
struct X {
template<class T> Y< T, void *, int> to_y();
template<class T, class U> Y< T, U, int> to_y();
};
template<> Y<char, void *, int> X::to_y<char> (); // !!!
template<> Y<char, int *, int> X::to_y<char, int *> ();
void g() {
X x;
x.to_y<char> ();
x.to_y<char, int *> ();
}
--
Summary: Partial ordering of explicit specialization should
include return type
Product: gcc
Version: 4.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: jhs at edg dot com
GCC host triplet: x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu
GCC target triplet: x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36435