Hi,
On 10/13/2011 10:37 PM, Paolo Carlini wrote:
+ if ((TYPE_PTR_P (type1) && TYPE_PTR_P (type2))
+ || (TYPE_PTRMEM_P (type1) && TYPE_PTRMEM_P (type2))
+ || TYPE_PTRMEMFUNC_P (type1))
You don't need to check TYPE_PTR_P or TYPE_PTRMEM_P for type2 here (or
in the condition above) because we already established that type1 and
type2 have the same TREE_CODE. OK with that change.
Thanks. I'm finishing regtesting again the below variant and mean to
commit it if everything goes well.
Paolo.
//////////////////
/cp
2011-10-14 Paolo Carlini <paolo.carl...@oracle.com>
PR c++/38174
* call.c (add_builtin_candidate): If two pointers have a composite
pointer type, generate a single candidate with that type.
/testsuite
2011-10-14 Paolo Carlini <paolo.carl...@oracle.com>
PR c++/38174
* g++.dg/overload/operator4.C: New.
Index: testsuite/g++.dg/overload/operator4.C
===================================================================
--- testsuite/g++.dg/overload/operator4.C (revision 0)
+++ testsuite/g++.dg/overload/operator4.C (revision 0)
@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+// PR c++/38174
+
+struct VolatileIntPtr {
+ operator int volatile *();
+};
+
+struct ConstIntPtr {
+ operator int const *();
+};
+
+void test_with_ptrs(VolatileIntPtr vip, ConstIntPtr cip) {
+ bool b1 = (vip == cip);
+ long p1 = vip - cip;
+}
Index: cp/call.c
===================================================================
--- cp/call.c (revision 179978)
+++ cp/call.c (working copy)
@@ -2582,6 +2582,21 @@ add_builtin_candidate (struct z_candidate **candid
|| MAYBE_CLASS_TYPE_P (type1)
|| TREE_CODE (type1) == ENUMERAL_TYPE))
{
+ if (TYPE_PTR_P (type1) || TYPE_PTR_TO_MEMBER_P (type1))
+ {
+ tree cptype = composite_pointer_type (type1, type2,
+ error_mark_node,
+ error_mark_node,
+ CPO_CONVERSION,
+ tf_none);
+ if (cptype != error_mark_node)
+ {
+ build_builtin_candidate
+ (candidates, fnname, cptype, cptype, args, argtypes, flags);
+ return;
+ }
+ }
+
build_builtin_candidate
(candidates, fnname, type1, type1, args, argtypes, flags);
build_builtin_candidate
