public inbox for gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Marek Polacek <polacek@redhat.com>
To: GCC Patches <gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org>
Cc: Jason Merrill <jason@redhat.com>, Jonathan Wakely <jwakely@redhat.com>
Subject: [wwwdocs] porting_to: Two-stage overload resolution for implicit move removed
Date: Wed, 12 Oct 2022 15:38:59 -0400	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <Y0cX0wQJBbmESbG1@redhat.com> (raw)

As I promised in
<https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2022-October/603189.html>,
I'd like to update our GCC 13 porting_to.html with the following note.

Does this look OK to commit?  Thanks,

diff --git a/htdocs/gcc-13/porting_to.html b/htdocs/gcc-13/porting_to.html
index 84a00f21..243ed29d 100644
--- a/htdocs/gcc-13/porting_to.html
+++ b/htdocs/gcc-13/porting_to.html
@@ -42,5 +42,57 @@ be included explicitly when compiled with GCC 13:
 </li>
 </ul>
 
+<h3 id="two-stage-or">Two-stage overload resolution for implicit move removed</h3>
+<p>
+GCC 13 removed the two-stage overload resolution when performing
+implicit move, whereby the compiler does two separate overload resolutions:
+one treating the operand as an rvalue, and then (if that resolution fails)
+another one treating the operand as an lvalue.  In the standard this was
+introduced in C++11 and implemented in gcc in
+<a href="https://gcc.gnu.org/git/?p=gcc.git;a=commitdiff;h=4ce8c5dea53d80736b9c0ba6faa7430ed65ed365">
+r251035</a>.  In
+<a href="https://gcc.gnu.org/git/?p=gcc.git;a=commitdiff;h=1722e2013f05f1f1f99379dbaa0c0df356da731f">
+r11-2412</a>, the fallback overload resolution was disabled in C++20 (but
+not in C++17).  Then C++23 <a href="https://wg21.link/p2266">P2266</a>
+removed the fallback overload resolution, and changed the implicit move
+rules once again.
+</p>
+<p>
+The two overload resolutions approach was complicated and quirky, so users
+should transition to the newer model.  This change means that code that
+previously didn't compile in C++17 will now compile, for example:</p>
+
+<pre><code>
+   struct S1 { S1(S1 &&); };
+   struct S2 : S1 {};
+
+   S1
+   f (S2 s)
+   {
+     return s; // OK, derived-to-base, use S1::S1(S1&&)
+   }
+</code></pre>
+
+<p>
+And conversely, code that used to work in C++17 may not compile anymore:
+</p>
+
+<pre><code>
+   struct W {
+     W();
+   };
+
+   struct F {
+     F(W&);
+     F(W&&) = delete;
+   };
+
+   F fn ()
+   {
+     W w;
+     return w; // use w as rvalue -> use of deleted function F::F(W&&)
+   }
+</code></pre>
+
 </body>
 </html>


             reply	other threads:[~2022-10-12 19:39 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2022-10-12 19:38 Marek Polacek [this message]
2022-10-12 20:50 ` Jonathan Wakely
2022-10-12 22:24   ` Marek Polacek
2022-10-12 22:38     ` Jonathan Wakely
2022-10-12 22:44       ` Marek Polacek

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=Y0cX0wQJBbmESbG1@redhat.com \
    --to=polacek@redhat.com \
    --cc=gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org \
    --cc=jason@redhat.com \
    --cc=jwakely@redhat.com \
    /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: link
Be 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).