CWG2958 [over.ics.rank] Incorrect example of overload resolution with qualification conversion

Full name of submitter: Vincent X

Issue description: In Example 5:

int g(const int*);                 // (1)
int g(const volatile int* const&); // (2)
int* p;
int k = g(p);                   // calls g(const int*)

(1) involves an lvalue-to-rvalue conversion followed by a qualification conversion, whereas (2) only requires a qualification conversion. Since [over.ics.rank]/3.2.5 assumes:

S1 and S2 differ only in their qualification conversion ([conv.qual]) [...]

This call should be ambiguous. This issue was initially discussed on Slack. The above example was introduced in CWG2803.

Suggested resolution: Modify the example as follows:

int g(const int* const&); 
int g(const volatile int* const&);
int* p;
int k = g(p);                   // calls g(const int* const&)

I think fixing the example is not what we want. Instead, we want the normative words to reflect the intent expressed in the example.

I think we could just borrow the "excluding any lvalue transformation" wording from p3.2.1.

CWG2958

Navigation Menu

Repository navigation

CWG2958 [over.ics.rank] Incorrect example of overload resolution with qualification conversion #639

Metadata

Assignees

Labels

Type

Projects

Milestone

Relationships

Development

CWG2958 [over.ics.rank] Incorrect example of overload resolution with qualification conversion #639

Description

Activity

jensmaurer commented on Nov 10, 2024

t3nsor commented on Nov 11, 2024

jensmaurer commented on Nov 11, 2024

Metadata

Metadata

Assignees

Labels

Type

Projects

Milestone

Relationships

Development

Issue actions