===================================================================
@@ -2183,6 +2183,10 @@ finish_call_expr (tree fn, vec<tree, va_gc> **args
}
}
+ if (TREE_CODE (fn) == ADDR_EXPR
+ && TREE_CODE (TREE_OPERAND (fn, 0)) == OVERLOAD)
+ fn = TREE_OPERAND (fn, 0);
+
if (is_overloaded_fn (fn))
fn = baselink_for_fns (fn);
===================================================================
@@ -0,0 +1,13 @@
+// PR c++/29143
+
+void f(int);
+
+void g(int,int);
+void g(int,int,int);
+
+void
+h ()
+{
+ (&f)(1);
+ (&g)(1,2,3);
+}
===================================================================
@@ -32,7 +32,7 @@ int main (int argc, char **argv)
void (*vptr) ();
(ovl) (1); // ok
- (&ovl) (1); // { dg-error "" } not suitable for overload resolution
+ (&ovl) (1); // ok
(ovl) (); // { dg-error "" } no matching candidates
// { dg-message "candidate" "candidate note" { target *-*-* } 36 }
(&ovl) (); // { dg-error "" } not suitable for overload resolution
Hi, On 11/12/2013 04:51 PM, Jason Merrill wrote: > Please add a comment citing 13.3.1.1. OK with that change. Thanks. The patch is still unapplied, because there are some interactions with access control (and bugs we have got about access control) which make me a bit nervous. For example for a testcase like the below, with the patch applied we end up emitting two errors: for C<&A::f> and then also, redundantly, for return T(): class A { static int f(); }; template<int (*T)()> struct C { virtual int g() { return T(); } }; void u() { new C<&A::f>(); } obviously, at some point we have to work on various access control issues wrt templates and make sure that consistently in such cases we warn for the template argument and only for the argument. By consistently I mean, for example, also for C<A::f>. Anyway, for the time being, the problem filed in 29143 is only about OVERLOADs, not about FUNCTION_DECLs, which are already fine, thus I'm wondering if we could instead apply something like attached (+ a comment). What do you think? Thanks, Paolo. //////////////////////