https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42356
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed|2011-10-22 00:00:00 |2021-9-7
--- Comment #19 from Andrew Pin
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42356
--- Comment #18 from Jonathan Wakely 2011-10-23
02:03:41 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #12)
> Manual said:
> g++ could also specify which ones are viable candidates, and which ones are
> not
> even viable, and for the ones not viable, explain why
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42356
--- Comment #17 from Jonathan Wakely 2011-10-23
01:54:17 UTC ---
But for this testcase I don't want to be told overload resolution passed or
failed, I want to be told it's ambiguous, because that's the error in the
testcase that prevents it compi
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42356
--- Comment #16 from Ivan Godard 2011-10-23
01:28:48 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #15)
> (In reply to comment #12)
> > Manual said:
> > g++ could also specify which ones are viable candidates, and which ones are
> > not
> > even viable, and for
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42356
--- Comment #15 from Manuel López-Ibáñez 2011-10-23
00:47:42 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #12)
> Manual said:
> g++ could also specify which ones are viable candidates, and which ones are
> not
> even viable, and for the ones not viable, explain
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42356
--- Comment #14 from Manuel López-Ibáñez 2011-10-23
00:46:15 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #13)
> (In reply to comment #11)
> > I wonder why the detailed overload failure that Nathan implemented does not
> > trigger here. I would expect to give de
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42356
--- Comment #13 from Jonathan Wakely 2011-10-22
19:43:08 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #11)
> I wonder why the detailed overload failure that Nathan implemented does not
> trigger here. I would expect to give details of why overload failed.
Name
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42356
--- Comment #12 from Ivan Godard 2011-10-22
15:52:54 UTC ---
Manual said:
g++ could also specify which ones are viable candidates, and which ones are not
even viable, and for the ones not viable, explain why.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42356
--- Comment #11 from Manuel López-Ibáñez 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
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42356
--- Comment #10 from Jonathan Wakely 2011-10-22
13:21:11 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #9)
> The first one should say freeList not freeList.
reported as PR 50828
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42356
--- Comment #9 from Jonathan Wakely 2011-10-22
13:07:50 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #8)
> That might be an improvement, yes. That's the only issue I see here.
Actually, there is another issue in the list of candidates:
template T* freeList::n
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42356
--- Comment #8 from Jonathan Wakely 2011-10-22
13:00:32 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #2)
> Well, I see several issues with the diagnostics.
>
> 1) The call is not ambiguous, because if it were (only) ambiguous then
> removing
> the base "baz"
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42356
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|confused compiler |improve list of candidates
13 matches
Mail list logo
