ychen added a comment. In D128745#3752148 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D128745#3752148>, @ychen wrote:
> In D128745#3751471 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D128745#3751471>, @joanahalili > wrote: > >> We have some compilation failures on our end because of function template >> parameter deduction when passing the function template to a function pointer. >> >> typedef void (*f)(const int&); >> >> template <typename T> >> void F(T value) {} >> >> template <typename T> >> void F(const T& value){} >> >> void q(f); >> >> void w() { >> q(&F); >> } >> >> https://gcc.godbolt.org/z/faoq74q7G >> Is this an intended outcome for this patch? > > Thanks for the report. No that's not the intent. This should only affect > partial ordering but not which candidate is viable (error message `candidate > function not viable ...`). I'll take a look. This new behavior is correct. It is due to the change on line 1758 in `SemaTemplateDeduction.cpp`. Basically, both the taking address of and regular function call to the overloaded function set using the same partial ordering rule (Relevant wording https://eel.is/c++draft/over.over#5). GCC was inconsistent in this regard (https://gcc.godbolt.org/z/WrKsaKrdz). MSVC agrees with this new/correct behavior. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D128745/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D128745 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
