https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96926
--- Comment #8 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jason Merrill :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:d909ead68214042e9876a8df136d0835273d4b86
commit r11-7289-gd909ead68214042e9876a8df136d0835273d4b86
Author: Jason Merrill
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96926
--- Comment #7 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jason Merrill :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:187d0d5871b1fa572b0238b4989fa067df56778f
commit r11-7287-g187d0d5871b1fa572b0238b4989fa067df56778f
Author: Jason Merrill
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96926
--- Comment #6 from Jason Merrill ---
So, for the second example, the compiler's process is
test() initializes the tuple member
looks for tuple(Test) ctor
considers tuple(tuple&&)
looks for conversion from Test to tuple
considers _ImplicitCtor
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96926
--- Comment #5 from Jason Merrill ---
(In reply to Jason Merrill from comment #4)
> I think perhaps it's wrong to do substitution at this point because X has no
> default argument. Giving it a default argument causes clang 10 to also
> reject
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96926
--- Comment #4 from Jason Merrill ---
Further reduced:
template struct A {
using type = typename T::type;
};
template class B {
template ::type X>
B(U);
};
struct C {
B b;
C();
};
int main() {
C c;
}
We run into trouble trying to
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96926
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |jason at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96926
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96926
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |9.4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96926
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Created attachment 49180
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=49180=edit
Manually reduced code
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96926
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Hmm, this might be a bad reduction. __is_constructible_impl really *is*
incomplete here. In the real code it isn't.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96926
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Known to fail|
11 matches
Mail list logo
