public inbox for gcc-bugs@sourceware.org help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "jason at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org> To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug c++/91133] [8/9/10/11 Regression] Wrong "partial specialization is not more specialized than" error Date: Fri, 01 May 2020 17:15:53 +0000 [thread overview] Message-ID: <bug-91133-4-gun6olTvxd@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/> (raw) In-Reply-To: <bug-91133-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91133 --- Comment #4 from Jason Merrill <jason at gcc dot gnu.org> --- This is really a question of partial ordering; determining whether the partial specialization is more specialized than the primary class template is equivalent to this testcase: template<typename T> struct Id { typedef T type; }; template<typename T, typename U, U X> struct A {}; template<typename T, typename U, U X> void f(A<T, U, X>); // #1 template<typename T, typename Id<T>::type X> void f(A<T, int, X>); // #2 int main() { f(A<int,int,42>()); // is #2 more specialized? } This was rejected as ambiguous by GCC going back at least to 4.1. It is also rejected by EDG/icc. It is accepted by clang and msvc, like the original testcase. The issue is with the partial ordering deduction of #1 from #2: we deduce int for U from the second argument, and Id<T>::type for U from the third argument, and those don't agree, so deduction for the third argument fails in both directions, and the functions are ambiguous. This is related to open core issues 455 and 1337. I don't know what rationale clang/msvc are using to conclude that #2 is more specialized.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-05-01 17:15 UTC|newest] Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top [not found] <bug-91133-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/> 2020-04-30 20:46 ` jason at gcc dot gnu.org 2020-05-01 17:15 ` jason at gcc dot gnu.org [this message] 2021-05-14 9:51 ` [Bug c++/91133] [9/10/11/12 " jakub at gcc dot gnu.org 2021-06-01 8:14 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2022-05-27 9:41 ` [Bug c++/91133] [10/11/12/13 " rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2022-06-28 10:37 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org 2023-03-16 17:07 ` jason at gcc dot gnu.org 2023-07-07 10:35 ` [Bug c++/91133] [11/12/13/14 " rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
Reply instructions: You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email using any one of the following methods: * Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client, and reply-to-all from there: mbox Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style * Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to switches of git-send-email(1): git send-email \ --in-reply-to=bug-91133-4-gun6olTvxd@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/ \ --to=gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org \ --cc=gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org \ /path/to/YOUR_REPLY https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html * If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header via mailto: links, try the mailto: linkBe sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
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).