https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100335
--- Comment #7 from Daniel <Daniel.Withopf at web dot de> --- To me it seems that [over.load] is the right section of the standard as the start of the section explicitly mentions that the rules there (either all or none of the overloads must have ref-qualifiers) applies when a using declaration is involved: "Not all function declarations can be overloaded. Those that cannot be overloaded are specified here. A program is ill-formed if it contains two such non-overloadable declarations in the same scope. [Note:This restriction applies to explicit declarations in a scope, and between such declarations and declarations made through a using-declaration(7.3.3). It does not apply to sets of functions fabricated as a result of name lookup (e.g., because of using-directives) or overload resolution (e.g., for operator functions).— end note]" Could it be that - gcc is on the right track by rejecting the example, but it should also reject the code in the case where the offending method is not called (see Comment 6)? - clang, MSVC are not taking the above note into consideration and thus are missing an error in this case?
