https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112810
Bug ID: 112810
Summary: bogus ambiguous overload resolution when taking
address of static/xobj member function template
introduced by using declaration where candidates have
a mismatched deduced return type
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.4
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: waffl3x at protonmail dot com
Target Milestone: ---
struct B {
static auto f(auto) { return 10; }
static int g(auto) { return 10; }
};
struct S0 : B {
using B::f;
using B::g;
static auto f(auto) { return 5; }
static auto g(auto) { return 5; }
};
struct S1 : B {
using B::f;
using B::g;
static int f(auto) { return 5; }
static int g(auto) { return 5; }
};
void test()
{
int (*p0)(int) = &S0::f;
int (*p1)(int) = &S0::g;
int (*p2)(int) = &S1::f;
int (*p3)(int) = &S1::g;
}
https://godbolt.org/z/ebcjshfYd
This does not present in other cases of overload resolution as far as
I've seen. It did not seem to manifest for implicit object member
functions at all.
The godbolt reproducer uses a slightly different test case to test much
older versions of the compiler. I was shocked to find out just how far
back this goes. And I was investigating it to make sure my patch wasn't
causing it!
I can look into fixing it after I finish my patch, if I remember, but
that's why I'm posting this report, just in case I don't remember. :^)
