http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42356
--- Comment #11 from Manuel López-Ibáñez <manu at gcc dot gnu.org> 2011-10-22 13:30:10 UTC --- (In reply to comment #8) > > 2) The reported list of overloads include those which have the wrong number > > of > > arguments. > > That's by design. Maybe that's the function you meant to call. If you call a > function with the wrong number of args you want the compiler to tell you name > lookup found something, but overload resolution failed because the number of > arguments didn't match. I wonder why the detailed overload failure that Nathan implemented does not trigger here. I would expect to give details of why overload failed. g++ could also specify which ones are viable candidates, and which ones are not even viable, and for the ones not viable, explain why. > That might be an improvement, yes. That's the only issue I see here. There is also the issue of the "expected primary-expression" triggered two times.
