From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 2529 invoked by alias); 31 Oct 2011 07:16:07 -0000 Received: (qmail 2520 invoked by uid 22791); 31 Oct 2011 07:16:05 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.9 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; Mon, 31 Oct 2011 07:15:51 +0000 From: "daniel.kruegler at googlemail dot com" To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug c++/50929] [C++0x] Wrong function selected for overload with template and rvalue reference Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2011 07:16:00 -0000 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: daniel.kruegler at googlemail dot com X-Bugzilla-Status: UNCONFIRMED X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3 X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: --- X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: CC Message-ID: In-Reply-To: References: X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/ Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Mailing-List: contact gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-bugs-owner@gcc.gnu.org X-SW-Source: 2011-10/txt/msg03181.txt.bz2 http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D50929 Daniel Kr=C3=BCgler changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |daniel.kruegler at | |googlemail dot com --- Comment #1 from Daniel Kr=C3=BCgler 2011-10-31 07:15:48 UTC --- Your expectations are in violation to the standard ;-). The constructor is selected by overload resolution. The non-template constructor A(const A& a) would be preferred, if there would be a perfect match (e.g. if you had an lvalue of type const A), but in your example you have an lvalue of non-cons= t A. The "perfect-forwarding" template constructor deduces to template <> A(A& t) via reference-collapsing, which is a better match for the argument expressi= on a. So, this looks like an invalid issue to me.