Welcome to ShenZhenJia Knowledge Sharing Community for programmer and developer-Open, Learning and Share
menu search
person
Welcome To Ask or Share your Answers For Others

Categories

Consider the following fragment:

struct X { };

namespace foo {
    template <class T>
    void bar() { T{} < T{}; }

    void operator<(const X&, const X&) {}
}

int main() {
    foo::bar<X>();
}

clang rejects this code, gcc accepts it. Is this a gcc bug or is this a clang bug?

See Question&Answers more detail:os

与恶龙缠斗过久,自身亦成为恶龙;凝视深渊过久,深渊将回以凝视…
thumb_up_alt 0 like thumb_down_alt 0 dislike
296 views
Welcome To Ask or Share your Answers For Others

1 Answer

I believe this is a gcc bug, filed as 70099. From [temp.dep.res]:

In resolving dependent names, names from the following sources are considered:
(1.1) — Declarations that are visible at the point of definition of the template.
(1.2) — Declarations from namespaces associated with the types of the function arguments both from the instantiation context (14.6.4.1) and from the definition context.

foo::operator<() isn't visible at the point of definition of the template, and isn't in an associated namespace from the function arguments (X's associated namespace is just the global namespace ::). So I think gcc is wrong to find foo::operator< and clang is correct to reject the code.


与恶龙缠斗过久,自身亦成为恶龙;凝视深渊过久,深渊将回以凝视…
thumb_up_alt 0 like thumb_down_alt 0 dislike
Welcome to ShenZhenJia Knowledge Sharing Community for programmer and developer-Open, Learning and Share

548k questions

547k answers

4 comments

86.3k users

...