From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-bugs-return-360459-listarch-gcc-bugs=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 3502 invoked by alias); 22 Jun 2011 17:35:28 -0000
Received: (qmail 3427 invoked by uid 22791); 22 Jun 2011 17:35:27 -0000
X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.7 required=5.0	tests=ALL_TRUSTED,AWL,BAYES_00
X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org
Received: from localhost (HELO gcc.gnu.org) (127.0.0.1)    by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Wed, 22 Jun 2011 17:35:12 +0000
From: "jason at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug c++/22596] Impossible to explicitly instantiate particular overloaded function
X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC
X-Bugzilla-Type: changed
X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None
X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc
X-Bugzilla-Component: c++
X-Bugzilla-Keywords:
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: jason at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Status: RESOLVED
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P2
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: ---
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: Status Resolution
Message-ID: <bug-22596-4-gkVdYhWnAb@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-22596-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-22596-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Date: Wed, 22 Jun 2011 17:35:00 -0000
Mailing-List: contact gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <gcc-bugs.gcc.gnu.org>
List-Archive: <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-bugs/>
List-Post: <mailto:gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org>
Sender: gcc-bugs-owner@gcc.gnu.org
X-SW-Source: 2011-06/txt/msg01985.txt.bz2

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22596

Jason Merrill <jason at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|UNCONFIRMED                 |RESOLVED
         Resolution|                            |INVALID

--- Comment #9 from Jason Merrill <jason at gcc dot gnu.org> 2011-06-22 17:35:09 UTC ---
This is not a bug; under the partial ordering rules, the second foo is more
specialized than the first, so if both are possible matches the second will be
chosen.

If you want the explicit instantiation to match the same function that's called
with no explicit template arguments, then don't provide explicit template
arguments in the explicit instantiation.  If you just write

template int foo(A_class<int> a);

or

template int foo<>(A_class<int> a);

it will do what you want.