http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=16070
Manuel López-Ibáñez <manu at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |manu at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #6 from Manuel López-Ibáñez <manu at gcc dot gnu.org> 2011-10-22
14:02:29 UTC ---
@Ivan, GCC 4.7 gives:
pr16070.cc:5:20: error: no matching function for call to ‘Bar(<unresolved
overloaded function type>)’
pr16070.cc:5:20: note: candidates are:
pr16070.cc:3:9: note: template<class T> void Bar(const T&)
pr16070.cc:3:9: note: template argument deduction/substitution failed:
pr16070.cc:5:20: note: couldn't deduce template parameter ‘T’
pr16070.cc:4:9: note: void Bar(int)
pr16070.cc:4:9: note: no known conversion for argument 1 from ‘<unresolved
overloaded function type>’ to ‘int’
which seems better, no?
Compare to Clang:
/tmp/webcompile/_30708_0.cc:5:15: error: no matching function for call to 'Bar'
int main() { Bar(f); }
^~~
/tmp/webcompile/_30708_0.cc:4:9: note: candidate function not viable: no
overload of 'f' matching 'int' for 1st argument
void Bar(int i) {}
^
/tmp/webcompile/_30708_0.cc:3:9: note: candidate template ignored: couldn't
infer template argument 'T'
void Bar(const T& t) {}
^
so g++ is not as good as clang, but it got closer at GCC 4.7. Perhaps g++ could
handle better the "unresolved overloaded function type"?
(Gosh! how can clang be that good at this?)
