https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110824
--- Comment #5 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Denis Yaroshevskiy from comment #4)
> Appreciate it.
>
> I'm still going to support gcc11 for the forseable future. Is there some
> easy way you see I can confirm that this is this issue?
> So
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110824
--- Comment #4 from Denis Yaroshevskiy ---
Appreciate it.
I'm still going to support gcc11 for the forseable future. Is there some easy
way you see I can confirm that this is this issue?
So that I don't create more duplicates?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110824
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110824
--- Comment #2 from Denis Yaroshevskiy ---
FYI, this is my workaround:
```
template struct just_shuffle_test_selector
{
Selector sel;
template
auto operator()(Args... args) const
requires(std::invocable)
{
auto r = sel(args...);
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110824
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
Reducing to see if it is reproducible on the trunk ...
