Comeau and G++ disagree. Compiler bug?

[Alan Woodland]

Hi,

I was trying to come up with obscure C++ questions in the style of GoTW
and ran across this unexpected difference between G++ and comeau. Can
anyone point me in the direction of the correct result for this program?
#include <iostream>

namespace A {
class Foo { };
struct f {
public:
f(const Foo& f) { std::cout << "ctor" << std::endl; }
};
}

template <typename T>
void f(const T& t) { std::cout << "Template ref" << std::endl; }

void f(A::Foo& f) { std::cout << "Plain ref" << std::endl; }

int main() {
f(A::Foo());
return 0;
}

G++ doesn't accept it and says:
test.cc: In function 'int main()':
test.cc:5: error: 'struct A::f' is not a function,
test.cc:14: error: conflict with 'void f(A::Foo&)'
test.cc:17: error: in call to 'f'
G++ version was:
g++ (GCC) 4.1.3 20070718 (prerelease) (Debian 4.1.2-14)
Copyright (C) 2006 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
This is free software; see the source for copying conditions. There is NO
warranty; not even for MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.

Whereas Comeau allows it (I only tried it online, so I don't for certain
know what f(A::Foo()); actually resolved to. Comeau version was:
Comeau C/C++ 4.3.9 (Mar 27 2007 17:24:47) for ONLINE_EVALUATI ON_BETA1
Copyright 1988-2007 Comeau Computing. All rights reserved.
MODE:strict errors C++ noC++0x_extensi ons

Thanks,
Alan

[James Kanze]

On Aug 12, 11:57 pm, "Victor Bazarov" <v.Abaza...@com Acast.netwrote:

Alan Woodland wrote:

I'll be filing a bug against g++ shortly given that g++ (GCC) 4.3.0
20070720 also seems to have this problem.

I would wait a couple of days... I have a sneaky feeling James Kanze
will want to chime in. <g>

Obviously:-). In this case, I don't find the standard as clear
as you do (but your interpretation is definitly one possible
one, and probably the intended one), so I wouldn't treat g++ too
harshly; they may just have interpreted the standard
differently. The current draft, however, adds an additional
qualification to ADL which says, literally "All names except
those of (possibly overloaded) functions and function templates
are ignored." So I'm sure that whatever the original reasons
why g++ behaves as it does, they'll want to change it to conform
to what the future standard will say.

--
James Kanze (GABI Software) email:ja******* **@gmail.com
Conseils en informatique orientée objet/
Beratung in objektorientier ter Datenverarbeitu ng
9 place Sémard, 78210 St.-Cyr-l'École, France, [phone]

[bnonaj]

James Kanze wrote:

On Aug 12, 11:57 pm, "Victor Bazarov" <v.Abaza...@com Acast.netwrote:

>Alan Woodland wrote:

>>I'll be filing a bug against g++ shortly given that g++ (GCC) 4.3.0
20070720 also seems to have this problem.

>I would wait a couple of days... I have a sneaky feeling James Kanze
will want to chime in. <g>

Obviously:-). In this case, I don't find the standard as clear
as you do (but your interpretation is definitly one possible
one, and probably the intended one), so I wouldn't treat g++ too
harshly; they may just have interpreted the standard
differently. The current draft, however, adds an additional
qualification to ADL which says, literally "All names except
those of (possibly overloaded) functions and function templates
are ignored." So I'm sure that whatever the original reasons
why g++ behaves as it does, they'll want to change it to conform
to what the future standard will say.

--
James Kanze (GABI Software) email:ja******* **@gmail.com
Conseils en informatique orientée objet/
Beratung in objektorientier ter Datenverarbeitu ng
9 place Sémard, 78210 St.-Cyr-l'École, France, [phone]

I think we're all grateful for both Victor and James. They both make a
lot of valuable contributions to this newsgroup. As for the G++ compiler
flagging an error, that is what I would have expected, and I'm indebted
to Victor and James for pointing out the lack of clarity in the current
C++ standard on this point. Keep up the good work, I certainly
appreciate it and hopefully it improves my C++ knowledge reading the
feedback given on this newsgroup.

JB

[James Kanze]

On Aug 13, 2:04 pm, "Victor Bazarov" <v.Abaza...@com Acast.netwrote:

[...]

According to the new draft, if 'f' were an object with an overloaded
function call operator:

namespace A {
class Foo { };
struct ff {
public:
void operator()(cons t Foo&)
{ std::cout << "operator() " << std::endl; }
} f;
}

void f(const A::Foo&) { std::cout << "regular func" << std::endl; }

int main() {
f(A::Foo());
return 0;
}

, it wouldn't have been found either, but I am not sure about the
current wording (or GNU folks' interpretation of it). I don't have
G++ to try this one, but VC++ and Comeau online accept it.

That's a good point. I think that in the current standard, that
is clearly legal. The fact that the draft makes it illegal
could break some code, and possibly wasn't intended. Maybe
someone should raise the point in comp.std.c++. (I'm leaving on
vacation very shortly, and will be off line for close to three
weeks, or I'd do it myself.)

--
James Kanze (GABI Software) email:ja******* **@gmail.com
Conseils en informatique orientée objet/
Beratung in objektorientier ter Datenverarbeitu ng
9 place Sémard, 78210 St.-Cyr-l'École, France, [phone]

[Victor Bazarov]

James Kanze wrote:

On Aug 13, 2:04 pm, "Victor Bazarov" <v.Abaza...@com Acast.netwrote:

[...]

>According to the new draft, if 'f' were an object with an overloaded
function call operator:

> namespace A {
class Foo { };
struct ff {
public:
void operator()(cons t Foo&)
{ std::cout << "operator() " << std::endl; }
} f;
}

> void f(const A::Foo&) { std::cout << "regular func" << std::endl; }

> int main() {
f(A::Foo());
return 0;
}

>, it wouldn't have been found either, but I am not sure about the
current wording (or GNU folks' interpretation of it). I don't have
G++ to try this one, but VC++ and Comeau online accept it.

That's a good point. I think that in the current standard, that
is clearly legal. The fact that the draft makes it illegal
could break some code, and possibly wasn't intended. Maybe
someone should raise the point in comp.std.c++. (I'm leaving on
vacation very shortly, and will be off line for close to three
weeks, or I'd do it myself.)

I don't believe it's so bad. Let's examine the "issue". If the
code was broken before the new Standard (the error was reported),
how would suddenly making the code working *break* anything? Are
you thinking of some SFINAE technique here?

If I remove the '::f' function from the code above, VC++ and Comeau
(the ones I can test now) do not find 'f', not sure what G++ would
do. Let's say that G++ would accept it (is that a bug?), relying
on their understanding of ADL. The new standard would then prohibit
finding 'f' since it's not a function. Fixing it should not really
be such a PITA (provided G++ folks do implement the new Standard
correctly after it's adopted), and they could still provide their
old behaviour as another extension <g>.

I'll post the question in comp.std.c++.

V
--
Please remove capital 'A's when replying by e-mail
I do not respond to top-posted replies, please don't ask