https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51577
Patrick Palka <ppalka at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |ppalka at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #18 from Patrick Palka <ppalka at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
If the dependent operator call is inside a lambda, e.g. when adjusting the
testcase in comment #1 to:
template<typename T>
void test( T v )
{
[&] { +v; }
}
namespace A
{
struct X { };
}
void operator+(A::X) { }
int main()
{
test( A::X() );
}
then GCC 11 correctly rejects the testcase:
51577.C: In instantiation of ‘bool test(T, U) [with T = A::X; U = B::Y]’:
51577.C:23:7: required from here
51577.C:5:14: error: no match for ‘operator==’ (operand types are ‘A::X’ and
‘B::Y’)
5 | [&] { v1 == v2; };
| ~~~^~~~~
ever since Nathan's r11-2876. As this commit mentions, should we enable the
maybe_save_operator_binding / push_operator_binding mechanism for all
templates? Something like
--- a/gcc/cp/name-lookup.c
+++ b/gcc/cp/name-lookup.c
@@ -9116,7 +9116,7 @@ static const char *const op_bind_attrname = "operator
bindings";
void
maybe_save_operator_binding (tree e)
{
- /* This is only useful in a generic lambda. */
+ /* This is only useful in a template. */
if (!processing_template_decl)
return;
@@ -9124,11 +9124,6 @@ maybe_save_operator_binding (tree e)
if (!cfn)
return;
- /* Do this for lambdas and code that will emit a CMI. In a module's
- GMF we don't yet know whether there will be a CMI. */
- if (!module_has_cmi_p () && !global_purview_p () && !current_lambda_expr())
- return;
-
tree fnname = ovl_op_identifier (false, TREE_CODE (e));
if (!fnname)
return;
seems to fix all the related testcases I tried.
