http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42356
--- Comment #9 from Jonathan Wakely <redi at gcc dot gnu.org> 2011-10-22 13:07:50 UTC --- (In reply to comment #8) > That might be an improvement, yes. That's the only issue I see here. Actually, there is another issue in the list of candidates: template<class U> T* freeList::newNode(U) [with U = U, T = baz] T* freeList<T>::newNode() [with T = baz] The first one should say freeList<T> not freeList. That would help realise that the member name has been found in two classes. With -fno-pretty-templates it's better: f.C:17:17: error: request for member ‘newNode’ is ambiguous f.C:8:15: error: candidates are: template<class U, class V> baz* freeList<baz>::newNode<U, V>(U, V) f.C:6:15: error: template<class U> baz* freeList<baz>::newNode<U>(U) f.C:4:13: error: baz* freeList<baz>::newNode() f.C:8:15: error: template<class U, class V> bar* freeList<bar>::newNode<U, V>(U, V) f.C:6:15: error: template<class U> bar* freeList<bar>::newNode<U>(U) f.C:4:13: error: bar* freeList<bar>::newNode() This makes it easier to see that name lookup found these functions: freeList<baz>::newNode(U, V) freeList<baz>::newNode(U) freeList<bar>::newNode(U,V) freeList<bar>::newNode(U) so you can see they come from different scopes (it would be even clearer if "bar" and "baz" weren't visually very similar!)
