public inbox for gcc-bugs@sourceware.org
help / color / mirror / Atom feed
* [Bug c++/17805] New: too liberal operator lookup
@ 2004-10-03 11:15 rth at gcc dot gnu dot org
2004-10-03 20:04 ` [Bug c++/17805] " pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (7 more replies)
0 siblings, 8 replies; 13+ messages in thread
From: rth at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2004-10-03 11:15 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
struct QCString
{
QCString( int size ) {};
QCString( const char *str ) {};
};
inline bool operator==( const QCString &s1, const QCString &s2 )
{ return 0; }
enum EStyle
{
FS_SOLID
};
static EStyle getFillStyle() { return FS_SOLID; }
int main()
{
if(getFillStyle() == "FS_SOLID") {}
}
As I understand it, this is invalid code. Alex Oliva writes:
Since one of the operands of == is a class or enumerated type [13.3.1.2]/1,
user-defined operators are candidate functions. However, to avoid the very kind
of error you've observed, paragraph 3 of the same clause, that defines how the
candidate functions are selected, says, in the second bullet:
[...] if no operand has a class type, only those non-
member functions in the lookup set that have a first parameter of
type T1 or "reference to (possibly cv-qualified) T1", when T1 is an
enumeration type, or (if there is a right operand) a second parame-
ter of type T2 or "reference to (possibly cv-qualified) T2", when T2
is an enumeration type, are candidate functions.
Affects at least gcc 3.2 and forward.
--
Summary: too liberal operator lookup
Product: gcc
Version: 4.0.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P2
Component: c++
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: rth at gcc dot gnu dot org
CC: gcc-bugs at gcc dot gnu dot org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17805
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread
* [Bug c++/17805] too liberal operator lookup
2004-10-03 11:15 [Bug c++/17805] New: too liberal operator lookup rth at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2004-10-03 20:04 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2004-10-04 17:37 ` reichelt at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (6 subsequent siblings)
7 siblings, 0 replies; 13+ messages in thread
From: pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2004-10-03 20:04 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-10-03 20:04 -------
Hmm, Comeau online tester accepts the code too.
--
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Keywords| |accepts-invalid
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17805
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread
* [Bug c++/17805] too liberal operator lookup
2004-10-03 11:15 [Bug c++/17805] New: too liberal operator lookup rth at gcc dot gnu dot org
2004-10-03 20:04 ` [Bug c++/17805] " pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2004-10-04 17:37 ` reichelt at gcc dot gnu dot org
2005-02-11 20:50 ` reichelt at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (5 subsequent siblings)
7 siblings, 0 replies; 13+ messages in thread
From: reichelt at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2004-10-04 17:37 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Additional Comments From reichelt at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-10-04 17:37 -------
Here's a reduced version:
=======================================
struct A
{
A(int);
A(const char*);
};
bool operator==(const A&, const A&);
enum E { e };
bool b = (e == "");
=======================================
Btw, icc rejects it.
--
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |reichelt at gcc dot gnu dot
| |org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17805
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread
* [Bug c++/17805] too liberal operator lookup
2004-10-03 11:15 [Bug c++/17805] New: too liberal operator lookup rth at gcc dot gnu dot org
2004-10-03 20:04 ` [Bug c++/17805] " pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2004-10-04 17:37 ` reichelt at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2005-02-11 20:50 ` reichelt at gcc dot gnu dot org
2005-04-17 4:00 ` aoliva at redhat dot com
` (4 subsequent siblings)
7 siblings, 0 replies; 13+ messages in thread
From: reichelt at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2005-02-11 20:50 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Additional Comments From reichelt at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-02-11 15:20 -------
Patch here:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2005-02/msg00453.html
--
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot gnu |aoliva at gcc dot gnu dot
|dot org |org
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Keywords| |patch
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17805
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread
* [Bug c++/17805] too liberal operator lookup
2004-10-03 11:15 [Bug c++/17805] New: too liberal operator lookup rth at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (2 preceding siblings ...)
2005-02-11 20:50 ` reichelt at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2005-04-17 4:00 ` aoliva at redhat dot com
2005-04-17 6:31 ` rth at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (3 subsequent siblings)
7 siblings, 0 replies; 13+ messages in thread
From: aoliva at redhat dot com @ 2005-04-17 4:00 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Additional Comments From aoliva at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-04-17 04:00 -------
Subject: Re: [PR c++/17805] limit operator overload candidates for enum operands
On Apr 2, 2005, Alexandre Oliva <aoliva@redhat.com> wrote:
> On Mar 18, 2005, Alexandre Oliva <aoliva@redhat.com> wrote:
>> On Mar 1, 2005, Alexandre Oliva <aoliva@redhat.com> wrote:
>>> On Feb 10, 2005, Alexandre Oliva <aoliva@redhat.com> wrote:
>>>> We're a bit too lenient in creating the candidate list for overload
>>>> resolution for expressions that use user-defined operator functions.
>>>> This patch arranges for us to reject functions that don't get an exact
>>>> match for at least one of the enum-typed arguments, if none of the
>>>> arguments have class types.
>>>> Regression-tested on x86_64-linux-gnu. Ok to install?
>>>> Index: gcc/cp/ChangeLog
>>>> from Alexandre Oliva <aoliva@redhat.com>
>>>> PR c++/17805
>>>> * call.c (build_new_op): Filter out operator functions that don't
>>>> satisfy enum-conversion match requirements.
>>> Ping?
>>> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2005-02/msg00453.html
>> Ping?
> Ping?
Ping?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17805
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread
* [Bug c++/17805] too liberal operator lookup
2004-10-03 11:15 [Bug c++/17805] New: too liberal operator lookup rth at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (3 preceding siblings ...)
2005-04-17 4:00 ` aoliva at redhat dot com
@ 2005-04-17 6:31 ` rth at gcc dot gnu dot org
2005-04-17 6:37 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (2 subsequent siblings)
7 siblings, 0 replies; 13+ messages in thread
From: rth at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2005-04-17 6:31 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Additional Comments From rth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-04-17 06:31 -------
Subject: Re: too liberal operator lookup
Why are you pinging bugzilla, and not the list, wherein a c++
maintainer might see it?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17805
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread
* [Bug c++/17805] too liberal operator lookup
2004-10-03 11:15 [Bug c++/17805] New: too liberal operator lookup rth at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (4 preceding siblings ...)
2005-04-17 6:31 ` rth at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2005-04-17 6:37 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2005-09-29 14:28 ` mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org
2005-09-29 16:34 ` rth at gcc dot gnu dot org
7 siblings, 0 replies; 13+ messages in thread
From: pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2005-04-17 6:37 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-04-17 06:37 -------
(In reply to comment #5)
> Subject: Re: too liberal operator lookup
>
> Why are you pinging bugzilla, and not the list, wherein a c++
> maintainer might see it?
Actually he pinged both.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17805
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread
* [Bug c++/17805] too liberal operator lookup
2004-10-03 11:15 [Bug c++/17805] New: too liberal operator lookup rth at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (5 preceding siblings ...)
2005-04-17 6:37 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2005-09-29 14:28 ` mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org
2005-09-29 16:34 ` rth at gcc dot gnu dot org
7 siblings, 0 replies; 13+ messages in thread
From: mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2005-09-29 14:28 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Additional Comments From mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-09-29 14:28 -------
The patch:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2005-02/msg00453.html
is basically OK.
However, please make the folloing changes before check-in:
+ && (same_type_p (TYPE_MAIN_VARIANT (TREE_TYPE (arg1)),
+ TYPE_MAIN_VARIANT (parmtype))
Use same_type_ignoring_top_level_qualifiers_p.
+ || (TREE_CODE (parmtype) == REFERENCE_TYPE
+ && reference_related_p (TREE_TYPE (arg1),
+ TREE_TYPE (parmtype)))))
That's silly. :-) Two types are reference-related only if they are cv-qualified
variants of one-another, or class types derived from one-another. The whole
point is that these aren't class types, so you want
same_type_ignoring_top_level_qualifiers_p again. So, you really want something
like:
if (TREE_CODE (parmtype) == REFERENCE_TYPE)
parmtype = TREE_TYPE (parmtype);
if (s_t_i_t_l_q_p (TREE_TYPE (arg1), parmtype))
...
Also, please code this using a loop:
for (i = 0; i < 2; ++i) {
if (i == 1 && !arg2)
break;
...
}
so that it is obvious that you were using the same tests on both arguments.
OK with those changes.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17805
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread
* [Bug c++/17805] too liberal operator lookup
2004-10-03 11:15 [Bug c++/17805] New: too liberal operator lookup rth at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (6 preceding siblings ...)
2005-09-29 14:28 ` mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2005-09-29 16:34 ` rth at gcc dot gnu dot org
7 siblings, 0 replies; 13+ messages in thread
From: rth at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2005-09-29 16:34 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Additional Comments From rth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-09-29 16:31 -------
Subject: Re: too liberal operator lookup
On Thu, Sep 29, 2005 at 02:28:03PM -0000, mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
> Also, please code this using a loop:
>
> for (i = 0; i < 2; ++i) {
> if (i == 1 && !arg2)
Or better,
for (i = 0; i < (arg2 ? 2 : 1); ++i)
r~
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17805
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread
* [Bug c++/17805] too liberal operator lookup
[not found] <bug-17805-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
` (2 preceding siblings ...)
2012-10-15 19:16 ` paolo at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2012-10-15 19:17 ` paolo.carlini at oracle dot com
3 siblings, 0 replies; 13+ messages in thread
From: paolo.carlini at oracle dot com @ 2012-10-15 19:17 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17805
Paolo Carlini <paolo.carlini at oracle dot com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|ASSIGNED |RESOLVED
CC|paolo.carlini at oracle dot |
|com |
Resolution| |FIXED
Target Milestone|--- |4.8.0
--- Comment #12 from Paolo Carlini <paolo.carlini at oracle dot com> 2012-10-15 19:17:24 UTC ---
Fixed.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread
* [Bug c++/17805] too liberal operator lookup
[not found] <bug-17805-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
2012-01-21 22:03 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
2012-01-21 22:27 ` paolo.carlini at oracle dot com
@ 2012-10-15 19:16 ` paolo at gcc dot gnu.org
2012-10-15 19:17 ` paolo.carlini at oracle dot com
3 siblings, 0 replies; 13+ messages in thread
From: paolo at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2012-10-15 19:16 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17805
--- Comment #11 from paolo at gcc dot gnu.org <paolo at gcc dot gnu.org> 2012-10-15 19:15:51 UTC ---
Author: paolo
Date: Mon Oct 15 19:15:48 2012
New Revision: 192471
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=192471
Log:
/cp
2012-10-15 Alexandre Oliva <aoliva@redhat.com>
Paolo Carlini <paolo.carlini@oracle.com>
PR c++/17805
* call.c (build_new_op): Filter out operator functions that don't
satisfy enum-conversion match requirements.
/testsuite
2012-10-15 Alexandre Oliva <aoliva@redhat.com>
Paolo Carlini <paolo.carlini@oracle.com>
PR c++/17805
* g++.dg/overload/operator6.C: New.
Added:
trunk/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/overload/operator6.C
Modified:
trunk/gcc/cp/ChangeLog
trunk/gcc/cp/call.c
trunk/gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread
* [Bug c++/17805] too liberal operator lookup
[not found] <bug-17805-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
2012-01-21 22:03 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2012-01-21 22:27 ` paolo.carlini at oracle dot com
2012-10-15 19:16 ` paolo at gcc dot gnu.org
2012-10-15 19:17 ` paolo.carlini at oracle dot com
3 siblings, 0 replies; 13+ messages in thread
From: paolo.carlini at oracle dot com @ 2012-01-21 22:27 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17805
Paolo Carlini <paolo.carlini at oracle dot com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC|gcc-bugs at gcc dot gnu.org |jason at gcc dot gnu.org,
| |paolo.carlini at oracle dot
| |com
--- Comment #10 from Paolo Carlini <paolo.carlini at oracle dot com> 2012-01-21 22:10:25 UTC ---
Jason, better delaying this to Stage 1? Is the patch otherwise technically
ready to be reapplied to current mainline?!?
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread
* [Bug c++/17805] too liberal operator lookup
[not found] <bug-17805-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
@ 2012-01-21 22:03 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
2012-01-21 22:27 ` paolo.carlini at oracle dot com
` (2 subsequent siblings)
3 siblings, 0 replies; 13+ messages in thread
From: pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2012-01-21 22:03 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17805
Andrew Pinski <pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Last reconfirmed|2005-12-30 07:12:30 |2012-01-21 0:00
--- Comment #9 from Andrew Pinski <pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org> 2012-01-21 21:33:25 UTC ---
The patch was approved but never applied.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2012-10-15 19:17 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 13+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2004-10-03 11:15 [Bug c++/17805] New: too liberal operator lookup rth at gcc dot gnu dot org
2004-10-03 20:04 ` [Bug c++/17805] " pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2004-10-04 17:37 ` reichelt at gcc dot gnu dot org
2005-02-11 20:50 ` reichelt at gcc dot gnu dot org
2005-04-17 4:00 ` aoliva at redhat dot com
2005-04-17 6:31 ` rth at gcc dot gnu dot org
2005-04-17 6:37 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2005-09-29 14:28 ` mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org
2005-09-29 16:34 ` rth at gcc dot gnu dot org
[not found] <bug-17805-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
2012-01-21 22:03 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
2012-01-21 22:27 ` paolo.carlini at oracle dot com
2012-10-15 19:16 ` paolo at gcc dot gnu.org
2012-10-15 19:17 ` paolo.carlini at oracle dot com
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).