From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: by sourceware.org (Postfix, from userid 48)
 id 02BF53858C39; Thu,  3 Feb 2022 12:19:26 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 02BF53858C39
From: "redi at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug c++/104365] Overload ambiguity not detected
Date: Thu, 03 Feb 2022 12:19:26 +0000
X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC
X-Bugzilla-Type: changed
X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None
X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc
X-Bugzilla-Component: c++
X-Bugzilla-Version: 11.2.0
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: diagnostic
X-Bugzilla-Severity: enhancement
X-Bugzilla-Who: redi at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Status: WAITING
X-Bugzilla-Resolution: 
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: ---
X-Bugzilla-Flags: 
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: cf_reconfirmed_on bug_status everconfirmed blocked
Message-ID: <bug-104365-4-IYETM3INwN@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-104365-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-104365-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-BeenThere: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Gcc-bugs mailing list <gcc-bugs.gcc.gnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://gcc.gnu.org/mailman/options/gcc-bugs>,
 <mailto:gcc-bugs-request@gcc.gnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-bugs/>
List-Post: <mailto:gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gcc-bugs-request@gcc.gnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://gcc.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gcc-bugs>,
 <mailto:gcc-bugs-request@gcc.gnu.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 03 Feb 2022 12:19:27 -0000

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D104365

Jonathan Wakely <redi at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
   Last reconfirmed|                            |2022-02-03
             Status|UNCONFIRMED                 |WAITING
     Ever confirmed|0                           |1
             Blocks|                            |87403

--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely <redi at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #1)
> I don't think this is ambigous as conversion from const char* to bool is
> better than doing a copy constructor.=20

Right, a standard conversion sequence is better than a user-defined convers=
ion.

I think if you want a new warning here you need to be very clear about exac=
tly
what you're asking for.

MSVC warns about converting const char* to bool, but that's nothing to do w=
ith
ambiguous overloads, it warns when there is no overloading at all:

void f(bool);
void g(const char* s) { f(s); }

This is warning about narrowing, not confusing overloads.

So please explain precisely what you want to warn, when you *don't* want it=
 to
warn, and how users can easily modify their code to avoid the warning if the
overload set is written exactly how they intend it to be written, and is
correct.


Referenced Bugs:

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D87403
[Bug 87403] [Meta-bug] Issues that suggest a new warning=