From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 11641 invoked by alias); 18 Nov 2002 05:56:05 -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 11606 invoked by uid 71); 18 Nov 2002 05:56:04 -0000 Date: Fri, 22 Nov 2002 14:46:00 -0000 Message-ID: <20021118055604.11596.qmail@sources.redhat.com> To: paolo@gcc.gnu.org Cc: gcc-prs@gcc.gnu.org, From: Pete Ratzlaff Subject: Re: libstdc++/5133: Problems with toupper Reply-To: Pete Ratzlaff X-SW-Source: 2002-11/txt/msg00864.txt.bz2 List-Id: The following reply was made to PR libstdc++/5133; it has been noted by GNATS. From: Pete Ratzlaff To: Martin Sebor Cc: gcc-gnats@gcc.gnu.org Subject: Re: libstdc++/5133: Problems with toupper Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2002 00:50:16 -0500 > > > > I cannot see anything that keeps one from using the toupper/tolower > > from with transform, and the fact that gcc won't allow it > > should be considered a bug. > > Yes, but only if it's the only available function. The other comes > from which is probably indirectly #included by . > I had heard this argument before, for the case when both overloads from and are in scope, but didn't know whether to believe it since no citations were ever shown. After digging around a bit (the template section of the standard is *dense*), I finally came across this: 14.8.2.4 16- A template-argument can be deduced from a pointer to function or pointer to member function argument if the set of overloaded functions does not contain function templates and at most one of a set of overloaded functions provides a unique match. So unless I'm misinterpretting, then your new explanation makes sense and gcc is conforming to the standard in this respect. Cheers, -Pete