Repository navigation
CWG2958 [over.ics.rank] Incorrect example of overload resolution with qualification conversion #639
Description
Full name of submitter: Vincent X
Reference: [over.ics.rank]
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&)
Activity
jensmaurer commentedon Nov 10, 2024
I think fixing the example is not what we want. Instead, we want the normative words to reflect the intent expressed in the example.
t3nsor commentedon Nov 11, 2024
I think we could just borrow the "excluding any lvalue transformation" wording from p3.2.1.
jensmaurer commentedon Nov 11, 2024
CWG2958
[-][over.ics.rank] Incorrect Example of Overload Resolution with Qualification Conversion[/-][+]CWG2958 [over.ics.rank] Incorrect Example of Overload Resolution with Qualification Conversion[/+][-]CWG2958 [over.ics.rank] Incorrect Example of Overload Resolution with Qualification Conversion[/-][+]CWG2958 [over.ics.rank] Incorrect example of overload resolution with qualification conversion[/+]