[Bug c++/12164] Unambiguous template reported as ambiguous - sometimes

[igodard at pacbell dot net]

PLEASE REPLY TO gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org ONLY, *NOT* gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org.

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=12164



------- Additional Comments From igodard at pacbell dot net  2003-09-04 20:39 -------
Subject: Re:  Unambiguous template reported as ambiguous - sometimes

Ah! I had thought that a typedef was enough to force instantiation.

Sorry for the confudion; please kill it.

Ivan

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "bangerth at dealii dot org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: <igodard@pacbell.net>
Sent: Thursday, September 04, 2003 1:07 PM
Subject: [Bug c++/12164] Unambiguous template reported as ambiguous -
sometimes


> PLEASE REPLY TO gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org ONLY, *NOT* gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org.
>
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=12164
>
>
> bangerth at dealii dot org changed:
>
>            What    |Removed                     |Added
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
>              Status|WAITING                     |RESOLVED
>          Resolution|                            |INVALID
>
>
> ------- Additional Comments From bangerth at dealii dot org  2003-09-04
20:07 -------
> Well, it never worked with gcc. And it fails with icc as well (sorry for
the confusion in
> my earlier message, this was an operator error -- too many files with
similar names
> in the same directory :-( ).
>
> Regarding your example, using just typedefs is not enough. if you actually
use these
> types, then you'll notice that F4 yields the same ambiguity. Your testcase
is then essentially
> equivalent to mine. Besides, it fails with icc as well.
>
> Your assertion that default arguments are second-class matches is
incorrect, IMHO.
>
> W.
>
>
>
>
> ------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
> You reported the bug, or are watching the reporter.