From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 5830 invoked by alias); 21 Oct 2002 21:16:02 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-prs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-prs-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 5813 invoked by uid 71); 21 Oct 2002 21:16:01 -0000 Date: Mon, 21 Oct 2002 14:16:00 -0000 Message-ID: <20021021211601.5812.qmail@sources.redhat.com> To: paolo@gcc.gnu.org Cc: gcc-prs@gcc.gnu.org, From: Wolfgang Bangerth Subject: Re: c++/8279: REGRESSION: failure to find a matching function in Reply-To: Wolfgang Bangerth X-SW-Source: 2002-10/txt/msg00790.txt.bz2 List-Id: The following reply was made to PR c++/8279; it has been noted by GNATS. From: Wolfgang Bangerth To: jbuck@synopsys.com, , , Cc: Subject: Re: c++/8279: REGRESSION: failure to find a matching function in Date: Mon, 21 Oct 2002 16:09:39 -0500 (CDT) > Even if gcc's behavior is correct, the diagnostic is puzzling: > > PREFIX/include/c++/3.2.1/bits/stream_iterator.h:141: no > match for `std::basic_ostream >& << const > std::pair&' operator > > when there is what appears to be an exact match. Strategies to come up > with a better diagnostic (e.g. tell the user why the function s/he > intended to use isn't accepted) would be wlcome. Maybe a first simple step would be to change the message to say no match for `...' found during name lookup Indicating that there _might_ even be such a name, but that it just was not found. This would at least give a clue as to what may be going wrong. Regards Wolfgang ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Wolfgang Bangerth email: bangerth@ticam.utexas.edu www: http://www.ticam.utexas.edu/~bangerth