| Issue |
113898
|
| Summary |
CE when there is no implicit conversion while considering one of multiple functions from a overload set
|
| Labels |
new issue
|
| Assignees |
|
| Reporter |
ddvamp
|
Consider an example:
```
#include <cassert>
struct S {
int x = 0;
operator int const && () { return static_cast<int &&>(x); }
};
bool foo(int &&) { return false; }
bool foo(int const &&) { return true; }
int main() {
assert(foo(S{})); // error: no viable conversion from 'S' to 'int'
return 0;
}
```
There is no implicit conversion from `S` to `int &&`, which means that the `foo(int const &&)` function should win, because
```
int const &&i1 = S{}; // well-formed
int &&i2 = S{}; // ill-formed
```
It looks like either an error occurs when defining `ICS` for `int &&` for ranking purposes, or for some reason the compiler decided that there is such an `ICS` and it is better than `ICS` for `int const &&`
Please correct me if I'm wrong
![]()
_______________________________________________
llvm-bugs mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-bugs
