https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70607
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70607
--- Comment #5 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Aha, that DR was reverted by http://wg21.link/lwg1522 (I failed to find it
because the deleted text says "All the specified ..." and I searched for "All
of the specified ..."
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70607
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target|GNU/Linux x86_64|
Host|GNU/Linux x86_64
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70607
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely ---
I think Marc's point is that GCC is doing what DR 1137 says ... but it looks as
though the DR resolution never made it into C++11.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70607
--- Comment #2 from Alexander Voigt ---
I absolutely agree, that the definition of the std::conj() overloads in C++11
is problematic. However, in my opinion one has to be strict when implementing
the standard. Otherwise, people might
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70607
--- Comment #1 from Marc Glisse ---
http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/lwg-defects.html#1137
