https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70610
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |6.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70610
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70610
--- Comment #7 from Patrick Palka ---
Author: ppalka
Date: Wed Apr 13 00:06:51 2016
New Revision: 234926
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=234926=gcc=rev
Log:
Fix PR c++/70610 (wrong overload resolution during template processing)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70610
--- Comment #6 from Patrick Palka ---
uhhh... here: https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2016-04/msg00482.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70610
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70610
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70610
--- Comment #3 from Patrick Palka ---
Not limited to operator overloads either:
void bar (const int &, int &);
void bar (int &, const int &);
void bar (const int &, const int &);
int a, b;
template
void
foo ()
{
bar (a + 1, b + 2);
}
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70610
--- Comment #2 from Patrick Palka ---
This general issue about the unconditional lvalue-ness of NON_DEPENDENT_EXPR
existed before my patch for PR c++/21802 though. For example, ere's a test
case that should compile cleanly but doesn't since at
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70610
--- Comment #1 from Patrick Palka ---
The problem is that during template processing we think the operand to the
unary + is an lvalue (because it's wrapped in a NON_DEPENDENT_EXPR node) and so
during overload resolution we select the non-const
