http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49152
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely <redi at gcc dot gnu.org> 2011-09-21 21:03:37 UTC --- The common thing in my original example and comment 2 is that when printing "no match" for a binary operator, the diagnostic machinery tries to "reconstruct" the left operand, but produces a poor result if that left operand is itself the result of an operator expression e.g. in my case *first gets "reconstructed" to first.foo::operator* (while technically equivalent, noone would write the latter) in comment 2 x[1] gets "reconstructed" to *(x + 4) (not even equivalent, the reconstruction has forgotten to divide the offset by sizeof(*x))
