From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 466 invoked by alias); 7 Jan 2004 14:01:01 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-bugs-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 450 invoked by uid 48); 7 Jan 2004 14:01:01 -0000 Date: Wed, 07 Jan 2004 14:01:00 -0000 Message-ID: <20040107140101.449.qmail@sources.redhat.com> From: "bangerth at dealii dot org" To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org In-Reply-To: <20040106205426.13590.boris@kolpackov.net> References: <20040106205426.13590.boris@kolpackov.net> Reply-To: gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug c++/13590] unexpected overload resolution X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC X-SW-Source: 2004-01/txt/msg00617.txt.bz2 List-Id: ------- Additional Comments From bangerth at dealii dot org 2004-01-07 14:00 ------- There is no ambiguity in the call to f(int), because there is only one such function. That there might be an ambiguity for other argument types is irrelevant. There is also no ambiguity in my shortened example (and your original code): the base class is virtual, so there is exactly one copy and no ambiguity with what "this" pointer it has to be called. That doesn't mean, however, that a compiler is supposed to detect this special case of virtual base classes, though. W. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=13590