deducing function template specialization when taking address

Question

I'm trying to understand the rules for function template argument deduction in the case where all arguments are defaulted. Under 13.10.1 (Explicit template argument specification), the standard (C++20) says:

— when the address of a function is taken, when a function initializes a reference to function, or when a pointer to member function is formed, ... If all of the template arguments can be deduced, they may all be omitted; in this case, the empty template argument list <> itself may also be omitted.

However, in the fourth line of the code snippets below, compilers (gcc, MSVC) seem to insist on having the empty angle brackets. Is this non-conformance or have I missed something ? (In this example, the issue doesn't matter, but the question arose in a context where it does matter).

template <typename T = int> void f(T) {}
void (*p)(int) = f;  //ok
auto a = f<>;  //ok
auto b = f; //error, can't deduce

void g() {}
auto c = g; //OK

Answer 1

The compilers are correct: auto a = f<>; is well-formed and auto b = f; is ill-formed. This is due to the rules about auto, combined with the rules about the address of the function template name f.

As described in [dcl.type.auto.deduct]/4, the auto type for the variable definitions is found in a way like template argument deduction done for a hypothetical function template using a template type parameter in its function parameter:

template <typename U> void auto_deducer(U);
auto a = f<>; // auto becomes the U deduced for auto_deducer(f<>)
auto b = f;   // auto becomes the U deduced for auto_deducer(f)

In [temp.deduct.type] paragraphs 4 and 5:

In certain contexts, however, the value [of a template argument] does not participate in type deduction, but instead uses the values of template arguments that were either deduced elsewhere or explicitly specified. If a template parameter is used only in non-deduced contexts and is not explicitly specified, template argument deduction fails.

The non-deduced contexts are:

• ...
• A function parameter for which the associated argument is an overload set, and one or more of the following apply:
  • ...
  • the overload set supplied as an argument contains one or more function templates.
• ...

So for both a and b, the template argument deduction used to determine the type of auto fails. Since it's not true that "all of the template arguments can be deduced", we're not allowed to omit the empty <> syntax.

But we're not entirely done yet, because the same paragraph [temp.arg.explicit]/4 you quoted has some relevant additional text:

Trailing template arguments that can be deduced or obtained from default template-arguments may be omitted from the list of explicit template-arguments. A trailing template parameter pack.... If all of the template arguments can be deduced, they may all be omitted; in this case, the empty template argument list <> itself may also be omitted. In contexts where deduction is done and fails, or in contexts where deduction is not done, if a template argument list is specified and it, along with any default template arguments, identifies a single function template specialization, then the template-id is an lvalue for the function template specialization.

For the definition of both a and b, the f<> or f expression is in a non-deduced context, so "deduction is not done". (The template argument deduction for the hypothetical auto_deducer(f<>) then fails, but that's for the overall auto_deducer call, after the part actually involving f<> determined that the type deduction step should not be done with that argument at all.) In auto a = f<>;, "a template argument list is specified" and using the default template argument "identifies a single function template specialization" f<int>, so the paragraph's final sentence applies and the template-id names f<int> after all. In auto b = f; no template argument list is specified (and f is not a template-id), so the sentence can't apply.

An actual call like the statement f(); is fine because template argument deduction happens, uses the default template argument, and succeeds without the complication of auto. Converting expression f to a specific target pointer-to-function type is fine, because that will deduce the template parameter T from the target type, and the default template argument doesn't get involved.

Another confirmation this behavior is intended is found in a non-normative note in [over.over]/3. The [over.over] section applies when lookup for a name (like f or f<>) gives an overload set comprising one or more functions and/or function templates and the name expression is not followed by a function call argument list:

For each function template designated by the name, template argument deduction is done, and if the argument deduction succeeds, the resulting template argument list is used to generate a single function template specialization, which is added to the set of selected functions considered. [ Note: As described in [temp.arg.explicit], if deduction fails and the function template name is followed by an explicit template argument list, the template-id is then examined to see whether it identifies a single function template specialization. If it does, the template-id is considered to be an lvalue for that function template specialization. The target type is not used in that determination. - end note ]

Answer 2

Trailing template arguments that can be deduced or obtained from default template-arguments may be omitted from the list of explicit template-arguments. [...] If all of the template arguments can be deduced, they may all be omitted; in this case, the empty template argument list <> itself may also be omitted.

Note the last sentence, as opposed to the first sentence, does not say "deduced or obtained from default template-arguments". Deducing and obtaining from default template-arguments are two different things. This may or may not be a wording defect in the standard.