Ambiguous overload - partial function template ordering with parameter packs

Question

Consider the following contrived piece of code:

template <class... > struct pack { };

template <class R, class T, class... Args>
int foo(pack<T>, Args...)
{
    return sizeof(R);
}

template <class R, class T, class... Ts, class... Args>
int foo(pack<T, Ts...>, Args... args)
{
    return foo<T>(pack<Ts...>{}, args...);
}

int main() {
    // gcc: OK, clang: ambiguous
    foo<int>(pack<int>{});

    // gcc: ambiguous, clang: ambiguous
    foo<int>(pack<int>{}, 0);
}

Both gcc and clang accept both calls if the 2nd overload is changed to take a pack of at least 2 types instead of a pack of at least one type:

template <class R, class T, class T2, class... Ts, class... Args>
int foo(pack<T, T2, Ts...>, Args... args)
{
    return foo<T>(pack<T2, Ts...>{}, args...);
}

If the non-deduced template parameter is moved to a deduced template parameter, then:

template <class... > struct pack { };

template <class R, class T, class... Args>
int foo(pack<R>, pack<T>, Args...)
{
    return sizeof(R);
}

template <class R, class T, class... Ts, class... Args>
int foo(pack<R>, pack<T, Ts...>, Args... args)
{
    return foo(pack<T>{}, pack<Ts...>{}, args...);
}

int main() {
    // gcc ok with both, clang rejects both as ambiguous
    foo(pack<int>{}, pack<int>{});
    foo(pack<int>{}, pack<int>{}, 0);
}

I'd expect all the calls to be OK in every version of this. What is the expected outcome of the above code examples?

I'd expect all the calls to be OK in every version of this. Why? (I didn't.) — Walter
@Walter Because the first overload is more specialized than the second. — Barry

Barry Barry · Accepted Answer · 2016-12-08T21:59:26

I believe now that clang is correct to reject and gcc is incorrect to accept those forms that it does. Here's a simplified example:

template <class...> struct pack { };

// (1)
template <class T>
void foo(pack<T> ) { }

// (2)
template <class T, class... Ts>
void foo(pack<T, Ts...> ) { }

int main() {
    foo(pack<int>{});
}

Both overloads are valid, and deducing (2) from (1) succeeds straightforwardly. The only issue is can we deduce (1) from (2). I'd initially think no... But [temp.deduct.type]/9 states:

If P has a form that contains <T> or <i>, then each argument P_i of the respective template argument list of P is compared with the corresponding argument A_i of the corresponding template argument list of A. [...] During partial ordering (14.8.2.4), if A_i was originally a pack expansion:
— if P does not contain a template argument corresponding to A_i then A_i is ignored;

So when we synthesize types for <T, Ts...> (say <U, Xs...>), we deduce T=U and then there is no template argument corresponding to the pack expension Xs..., so we ignore it. All the non-ignored template parameters succeeded in template deduction, so we consider deducing (1) from (2) to be success.

Since deduction succeeds in both directions, neither function template is considered more specialized than the other, and the call should be ambiguous.

I have not yet submitted a bug report, waiting on some confirmation from the community.

Ambiguous overload - partial function template ordering with parameter packs

2 Answers