https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102257
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102257
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||arthur.j.odwyer at gmail dot
com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102257
--- Comment #6 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #2)
> See https://wg21.link/cwg1228 this might be invalid code and GCC is correct
> in rejecting it.
So dup of PR 84849 ?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102257
--- Comment #5 from Jonathan Wakely ---
I think this is the same bug, reduced from Bug 100667 comment 1 (where it
wasn't related):
struct allocator_arg_t { explicit allocator_arg_t() = default; };
class string{};
class Foo{};
struct tuple
{
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102257
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ppalka at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102257
--- Comment #3 from 康桓瑋 ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #2)
> See https://wg21.link/cwg1228 this might be invalid code and GCC is correct
> in rejecting it.
Maybe. But why does GCC accept the following?
#include
#include
int
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102257
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
See https://wg21.link/cwg1228 this might be invalid code and GCC is correct in
rejecting it.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102257
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
