ychen added a comment. In D128745#3752593 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D128745#3752593>, @ychen wrote:
> 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 is > inconsistent in this regard (https://gcc.godbolt.org/z/WrKsaKrdz). MSVC > agrees with this new/correct behavior. TBH, the Clang diagnosis could be better here. It kinda misleading about what is happening. MSVC's diagnosis is more clear (https://gcc.godbolt.org/z/WrKsaKrdz). 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
