--- Comment #7 from Zarathustra at gentlemansclub dot de 2007-05-17 13:27
---
According to my current understanding, the compiler is right not to accept the
given example code:
Name resolution at the point of instantiation does only work for dependent
names.
Given a expression which
--- Comment #6 from Zarathustra at gentlemansclub dot de 2007-03-09 12:35
---
(In reply to comment #5)
So, the way I read this is that gcc3.3 and icc9.0 agree that the call is
ambiguous. I must admit that I don't know whether this is the correct
behavior.
Also the SunCC yields
--- Comment #4 from Zarathustra at gentlemansclub dot de 2007-02-21 10:16
---
Now the code was also compiled with 4.3.0 and produced the same error message.
I can make the actual failure more specific: The following code compiles fine:
templatetemplatetypename class TOperator
--- Comment #3 from Zarathustra at gentlemansclub dot de 2007-02-21 07:44
---
The same problem appears with gcc 4.1.2 20061115 (prerelease) (SUSE Linux)
--
Zarathustra at gentlemansclub dot de changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: Zarathustra at gentlemansclub dot de
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30822
--- Comment #2 from Zarathustra at gentlemansclub dot de 2007-02-16 16:35
---
I know the rules for template function name lookup are complicated, and I do
not claim that I understand them completely. But I am pretty sure that the
order of the definitions should not matter
