http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=7196

           Summary: Unfair function address overload resolution
           Product: D
           Version: unspecified
          Platform: Other
        OS/Version: Linux
            Status: NEW
          Severity: normal
          Priority: P2
         Component: DMD
        AssignedTo: nobody@puremagic.com
        ReportedBy: timon.gehr@gmx.ch


--- Comment #0 from timon.gehr@gmx.ch 2012-01-01 17:25:50 PST ---
Tested with DMD 2.057

auto foo(int x){return x;}
auto foo(double x){return x;}

void main() {
    auto x = (&foo)(1);   // ok
    auto y = (&foo)(1.0); // fail
}

Error: cannot implicitly convert expression (1) of type double to int

The code should either compile, or both lines should fail.

-- 
Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------

http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=7196


Kenji Hara <k.hara.pg@gmail.com> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Keywords|                            |patch, rejects-valid
           Platform|Other                       |All


--- Comment #1 from Kenji Hara <k.hara.pg@gmail.com> 2012-01-02 01:25:23 PST ---
https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/dmd/pull/600

AddrExp that is yet not bounded into an variable should keep unresolved
overload information.
So the both lines should compile.

-- 
Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------

http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=7196


Stewart Gordon <smjg@iname.com> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |smjg@iname.com


--- Comment #2 from Stewart Gordon <smjg@iname.com> 2012-01-02 02:43:35 PST ---
This is strange - issue 52 is marked as fixed, so why does it still EVER pick the wrong instance?

Where does the spec address the meaning of &foo if there's more than one function called foo in scope?

-- 
Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------

http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=7196



--- Comment #3 from Kenji Hara <k.hara.pg@gmail.com> 2012-01-02 03:19:13 PST ---
(In reply to comment #2)
> This is strange - issue 52 is marked as fixed, so why does it still EVER pick the wrong instance?

This problem is only when the caller of CallExp is AddrExp (== &foo). bug 51 is the problems on initializer and rhs of AssignExp.

> Where does the spec address the meaning of &foo if there's more than one function called foo in scope?

In this case, CallExp can pick the original overload of foo in static.
Therefore compiler should translate from (&foo)(arguments...) to
foo(arguments...).
Finally, the overload should be resolved.

-- 
Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------

http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=7196



--- Comment #4 from timon.gehr@gmx.ch 2012-01-02 11:47:18 PST ---
(In reply to comment #3)
> (In reply to comment #2)
> > This is strange - issue 52 is marked as fixed, so why does it still EVER pick the wrong instance?
> 
> This problem is only when the caller of CallExp is AddrExp (== &foo). bug 51 is the problems on initializer and rhs of AssignExp.
> 
> > Where does the spec address the meaning of &foo if there's more than one function called foo in scope?
> 
> In this case, CallExp can pick the original overload of foo in static.
> Therefore compiler should translate from (&foo)(arguments...) to
> foo(arguments...).
> Finally, the overload should be resolved.

If the compiler rewrites (&foo)(arguments...) to foo(arguments...), is it now
able to inline delegates that are called directly like for example {x++;}() ?

-- 
Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------

http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=7196



--- Comment #5 from Kenji Hara <k.hara.pg@gmail.com> 2012-01-02 18:18:56 PST ---
(In reply to comment #4)
> If the compiler rewrites (&foo)(arguments...) to foo(arguments...), is it now
> able to inline delegates that are called directly like for example {x++;}() ?

Sorry, I'm not sure the meaning of 'inline'.
If you means 'optimizing', I don't know direct called delegate would be inlined
or not...

-- 
Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------

http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=7196


Walter Bright <bugzilla@digitalmars.com> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|NEW                         |RESOLVED
                 CC|                            |bugzilla@digitalmars.com
         Resolution|                            |FIXED


--- Comment #6 from Walter Bright <bugzilla@digitalmars.com> 2012-01-06 00:45:18 PST ---
https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/dmd/commit/092ae010d75417a5436fd6502a024af5d21a7922

-- 
Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------