Avoid potential ambiguity in UrReturnHelper #2256
Merged
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
|
intel/llvm PR: intel/llvm#15895 |
kbenzie
reviewed
Oct 31, 2024
If UrReturnHelper's operator() is explicitly called as operator()<T>(...), there is a potential for ambiguity when the specified RetType and the inferred T are the same: this is ambiguous with the version of operator() where only T is a template parameter, and T is specified explicitly. We already have code that explicitly calls operator()<T>(...), so prevent this from becoming a problem.
hvdijk
force-pushed
the
urreturnhelper-ambiguity
branch
from
5f11b49 to
f6d00b8
Compare
kbenzie
approved these changes
Nov 5, 2024
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
3 participants
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
If UrReturnHelper's
operator()is explicitly called asoperator()<T>(...), there is a potential for ambiguity when the specifiedRetTypeand the inferredTare the same: this is ambiguous with the version ofoperator()where onlyTis a template parameter, andTis specified explicitly. We already have code that explicitly callsoperator()<T>(...), so prevent this from becoming a problem.I saw this in an unsupported DPC++ build configuration, 32-bit x86, but expect it to come up in future supported DPC++ build configurations as well.
Note: IMHO, the fact that this is so awkward to call suggests to me that this possibly should not be an overload of
operator()in the first place, but changing that does have the potential to break things, so I just left that as it is now.