http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47765
Jason Merrill <jason at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed| |2011-09-08
Ever Confirmed|0 |1
--- Comment #3 from Jason Merrill <jason at gcc dot gnu.org> 2011-09-08
16:15:24 UTC ---
14.8.2/6: At certain points in the template argument deduction process it is
necessary to take a function type that makes use of template parameters and
replace those template parameters with the corresponding template arguments.
This is done at the beginning of template argument deduction when any
explicitly specified template arguments are substituted into the function type,
and again at the end of template argument deduction when any template arguments
that were deduced or obtained from default arguments are substituted.
So, when we start to try to evaluate b.foo<char>, we substitute 'char' for T in
both templates, so they become
template<typename T2>
void foo(const A<char>& r) {}
void foo(const B<char>& r) {}
14.8.1/6: Implicit conversions (Clause 4) will be performed on a function
argument to convert it to the type of the corresponding function parameter if
the parameter type contains no template-parameters that participate in template
argument deduction. [ Note: Template parameters do not participate in template
argument deduction if they are explicitly specified.
So we no longer do deduction on the first parameter, but rather check for a
conversion. What is unclear in the standard is when exactly the conversion
should happen. Currently G++ and EDG seem to check for a conversion during
argument deduction, which leads to instantiation of A<char> and thus the error
you see. But another reasonable interpretation would be to skip the parameter
during deduction and then let normal overload resolution check for the
conversion; in that case deduction would fail for the first foo and so we never
check the conversion, so we don't try to instantiate A<char>. clang accepts
this testcase, so it seems likely that this is what they are doing.
