[Bug c++/29236] [4.0/4.1/4.2 Regression] Bogus ambiguity with templates + friend
--- Comment #16 from jason at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-11-02 05:59 --- Fixed for 4.3.0. -- jason at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What|Removed |Added Known to work|2.95|2.95 4.3.0 Summary|[4.0/4.1/4.2/4.3 Regression]|[4.0/4.1/4.2 Regression] |Bogus ambiguity with|Bogus ambiguity with |templates + friend |templates + friend http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29236
[Bug c++/29236] [4.0/4.1/4.2 Regression] Bogus ambiguity with templates + friend
--- Comment #10 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-10-20 07:33 --- *** Bug 29486 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. *** -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29236
[Bug c++/29236] [4.0/4.1/4.2 Regression] Bogus ambiguity with templates + friend
--- Comment #11 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-10-20 07:34 --- *** Bug 29438 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. *** -- pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What|Removed |Added CC||pcarlini at suse dot de http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29236
[Bug c++/29236] [4.0/4.1/4.2 Regression] Bogus ambiguity with templates + friend
--- Comment #8 from mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-10-16 18:36 --- The problem here is that tsubst, for a TEMPLATE_TEMPLATE_PARM, reduces the parameter level for the new TEMPLATE_TEMPLATE_PARM (via a call to reduce_template_parm_level), but does not reset TEMPLATE_TEMPLATE_PARM_TEMPLATE_DECL to a substituted version of the template. Therefore, when we consider merging the friend declaration and the global declaration, we think that there types are different. -- mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What|Removed |Added Last reconfirmed|2006-10-10 04:11:45 |2006-10-16 18:36:50 date|| http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29236
[Bug c++/29236] [4.0/4.1/4.2 Regression] Bogus ambiguity with templates + friend
--- Comment #9 from bangerth at math dot tamu dot edu 2006-10-17 01:49 --- Subject: Re: [4.0/4.1/4.2 Regression] Bogus ambiguity with templates + friend TEMPLATE_TEMPLATE_PARM_TEMPLATE_DECL If I didn't know better, this would sure sound like something written under the influence :-) - Wolfgang Bangerthemail:[EMAIL PROTECTED] www: http://www.math.tamu.edu/~bangerth/ -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29236
[Bug c++/29236] [4.0/4.1/4.2 Regression] Bogus ambiguity with templates + friend
-- mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What|Removed |Added Priority|P2 |P1 http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29236
[Bug c++/29236] [4.0/4.1/4.2 Regression] Bogus ambiguity with templates + friend
-- rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What|Removed |Added CC||rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot ||org Known to fail|3.2.3 3.3.5 3.4.6 4.0.1 |3.2.3 3.3.5 3.4.6 4.0.3 |4.1.1 4.2.0 3.0.4 |4.1.1 4.2.0 3.0.4 Summary|[4.0/4.1/4.2? regression] |[4.0/4.1/4.2 Regression] |Bogus ambiguity with|Bogus ambiguity with |templates + friend |templates + friend Target Milestone|4.2.0 |4.0.4 http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29236
[Bug c++/29236] [4.0/4.1/4.2 Regression] Bogus ambiguity with templates + friend
--- Comment #6 from bangerth at dealii dot org 2006-10-10 14:25 --- (In reply to comment #5) foo should not have been injected by the friend. True, but that's irrelevant here. We get a tentative declaration that we simply have to unify with the later real declaration. Note the Priority should be only changed by the release manager. We've been over that before, Andrew. It has always been the case that bugmasters do the initial triage, including setting an initial priority. We've done that at least back to 2002, when we were still using GNATS instead of bugzilla. It is also true that the RM has the prerogative to downgrade priorities if he doesn't deem things that important. I maintain that it is important to raise the priority of PRs that are rejects-valid so that they get some visibility, and in particular of regressions. If someone higher up in the food chain thinks otherwise wants to downgrade things, that's fine by me. But it's not productive if bugmasters quarrel among themselves if something should be a P2 or a P3 ... W. -- bangerth at dealii dot org changed: What|Removed |Added CC||mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot ||org Priority|P3 |P2 http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29236
[Bug c++/29236] [4.0/4.1/4.2 Regression] Bogus ambiguity with templates + friend
--- Comment #7 from mark at codesourcery dot com 2006-10-10 16:23 --- Subject: Re: [4.0/4.1/4.2 Regression] Bogus ambiguity with templates + friend bangerth at dealii dot org wrote: We've been over that before, Andrew. It has always been the case that bugmasters do the initial triage, including setting an initial priority. We've done that at least back to 2002, when we were still using GNATS instead of bugzilla. It is also true that the RM has the prerogative to downgrade priorities if he doesn't deem things that important. I have asked that all bugs be left at P3, and that I set their initial priority. I also welcome input about what the priority should be, ideally in the audit trail for the PR itself. But, looking at P3 bugs is how I see what the new bugs are. Thanks, -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29236
[Bug c++/29236] [4.0/4.1/4.2? regression] Bogus ambiguity with templates + friend
--- Comment #3 from bangerth at dealii dot org 2006-10-10 04:11 ---
Confirmed:
--
template typename T struct A {};
template template typename class P
struct B {
template template typename class Q
friend bool foo (const BQ a);
};
template template typename class Q
bool foo (const BQ a);
void bar () {
BA a;
foo (a);
}
--
g/x /home/bangerth/bin/gcc-4.2-pre/bin/c++ -c x.cc
x.cc: In function #8216;void bar()#8217;:
x.cc:14: error: call of overloaded #8216;foo(BA)#8217; is ambiguous
x.cc:10: note: candidates are: bool foo(const BQ) [with Q = A]
x.cc:6: note: bool foo(const BQ) [with Q = A, P = A]
icc accepts the code. I believe we simply forget to unify the tentative
declaration from the friend declaration with the real template once we
encounter it, and end up with two declarations instead of one. We then
get confused when we have to pick one of the two.
This is a regression introduced in 3.2 over 2.95.
W.
--
bangerth at dealii dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||bangerth at dealii dot org
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever Confirmed|0 |1
Keywords||rejects-valid
Known to fail||3.2.3 3.3.5 3.4.6 4.0.1
||4.1.1 4.2.0
Known to work||2.95
Priority|P3 |P2
Last reconfirmed|-00-00 00:00:00 |2006-10-10 04:11:45
date||
Summary|Friend operators for class |[4.0/4.1/4.2? regression]
|with template in template |Bogus ambiguity with
|argument does not compile |templates + friend
Target Milestone|--- |4.2.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29236
[Bug c++/29236] [4.0/4.1/4.2? regression] Bogus ambiguity with templates + friend
--- Comment #4 from bangerth at dealii dot org 2006-10-10 04:13 --- btw, this only happens if Q is really a template template argument. As noted by the original reporter, the problem goes away if Q is simply a template argument. W. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29236
[Bug c++/29236] [4.0/4.1/4.2? regression] Bogus ambiguity with templates + friend
--- Comment #5 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-10-10 04:31 --- foo should not have been injected by the friend. Note the Priority should be only changed by the release manager. -- pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What|Removed |Added Known to fail|3.2.3 3.3.5 3.4.6 4.0.1 |3.2.3 3.3.5 3.4.6 4.0.1 |4.1.1 4.2.0 |4.1.1 4.2.0 3.0.4 Priority|P2 |P3 http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29236
