Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Fix operator warning #1424

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Feb 20, 2025
Merged

Fix operator warning #1424

merged 1 commit into from
Feb 20, 2025

Conversation

sandro-elsweijer
Copy link
Collaborator

Describe your changes here:
Fixes an ambiguity warning which prevents me from compiling this.

ISO C++20 considers use of overloaded operator '==' (with operand types 'const DummyInt' (aka 'const T8Type<int, dummy_int, Addable, Subtractable, AddAssignable, Multipliable, Dividable, PrefixDecrementable, PrefixIncrementable, EqualityComparable, Printable>') and 'const DummyInt') to be ambiguous despite there being a unique best viable function

Stackoverflow explanation:

The specific issue is that in C++20, comparison operators add a new notion of rewritten and reversed candidates. So lookup for the expression a == b will also end up matching operators like b == a. In the typical case, this means you have to write fewer operators, since we know equality is commutative.

But if you have a const-mismatch, what happens is you end up with these two candidates:

bool operator==(/* this*/ A&, A const&); // member function
bool operator==(A const&, /* this*/ A&); // reversed member function

With two arguments of type A. The first candidate is better in the first argument, and the second candidate is better in the second argument. Neither candidate is better than the other, hence ambiguous.

All these boxes must be checked by the reviewers before merging the pull request:

As a reviewer please read through all the code lines and make sure that the code is fully understood, bug free, well-documented and well-structured.

General

  • The reviewer executed the new code features at least once and checked the results manually

  • The code follows the t8code coding guidelines

  • New source/header files are properly added to the Makefiles

  • The code is well documented

  • All function declarations, structs/classes and their members have a proper doxygen documentation

  • All new algorithms and data structures are sufficiently optimal in terms of memory and runtime (If this should be merged, but there is still potential for optimization, create a new issue)

Tests

  • The code is covered in an existing or new test case using Google Test

Github action

  • The code compiles without warning in debugging and release mode, with and without MPI (this should be executed automatically in a github action)

  • All tests pass (in various configurations, this should be executed automatically in a github action)

    If the Pull request introduces code that is not covered by the github action (for example coupling with a new library):

    • Should this use case be added to the github action?
    • If not, does the specific use case compile and all tests pass (check manually)

Scripts and Wiki

  • If a new directory with source-files is added, it must be covered by the script/find_all_source_files.scp to check the indentation of these files.
  • If this PR introduces a new feature, it must be covered in an example/tutorial and a Wiki article.

License

  • The author added a BSD statement to doc/ (or already has one)

Tag Label

  • The author added the patch/minor/major label in accordance to semantic versioning.

@sandro-elsweijer sandro-elsweijer added critical Should be handled ASAP priority: high Should be solved as soon as possible workload: low Would take half a day or less labels Feb 20, 2025
@sandro-elsweijer sandro-elsweijer mentioned this pull request Feb 20, 2025
15 tasks
Copy link
Collaborator

@Davknapp Davknapp left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Thank you!

@Davknapp Davknapp enabled auto-merge February 20, 2025 13:10
@Davknapp Davknapp added this pull request to the merge queue Feb 20, 2025
Merged via the queue into main with commit d3a36e2 Feb 20, 2025
20 checks passed
@Davknapp Davknapp deleted the fix-strong_types_warning branch February 20, 2025 14:21
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
critical Should be handled ASAP priority: high Should be solved as soon as possible workload: low Would take half a day or less
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants