===================================================================
@@ -0,0 +1,11 @@
+// PR c++/51230
+
+template<int> struct A {};
+
+template<int N> void foo(A<N>, A<N>); // { dg-message "template" }
+
+void bar()
+{
+ foo(A<0>(), A<1>()); // { dg-error "no matching" }
+}
+// { dg-message "candidate|parameter 'N' ('0' and '1')" { target *-*-* } 9 }
===================================================================
@@ -5501,7 +5501,7 @@ unify_inconsistency (bool explain_p, tree parm, tr
{
if (explain_p)
inform (input_location,
- " deduced conflicting types for parameter %qT (%qT and %qT)",
+ " conflicting deductions for parameter %qE (%qE and %qE)",
parm, first, second);
return 1;
}
Hi, apparently in the new deductions notes we are not handling correctly non-type parameters in some messages, like in: template<int> struct A {}; template<int N> void foo(A<N>, A<N>); void bar() { foo(A<0>(), A<1>()); } we use %qT in unify_inconsistency and the output is garbled. The below is the most compact fix I have been able to figure out, but of course other solutions are possible, like separate error messages for non-type (TYPE_P (parm) to tell which appears to work fine), etc. Tested x86_64-linux. Thanks, Paolo. ////////////////////// /cp 2011-11-20 Paolo Carlini <paolo.carlini@oracle.com> PR c++/51230 * pt.c (unify_inconsistency): Handle non-type parameters better. /cp 2011-11-20 Paolo Carlini <paolo.carlini@oracle.com> PR c++/51230 * g++.dg/template/error46.C: New.