https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112607
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112607
--- Comment #6 from GCC Commits ---
The releases/gcc-13 branch has been updated by Jonathan Wakely
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:c7c92d61d32f6fd7746e2844f68d1936e2b6f6f6
commit r13-8105-gc7c92d61d32f6fd7746e2844f68d1936e2b6f6f6
Author: Jonathan
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112607
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |13.3
--- Comment #5 from Jonathan
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112607
--- Comment #4 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jonathan Wakely :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:279e407a06cc676d8e6e0bb5755b0a804e05377c
commit r14-5588-g279e407a06cc676d8e6e0bb5755b0a804e05377c
Author: Jonathan Wakely
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112607
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112607
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely ---
The standard tries quite hard to avoid this kind of specialization:
https://eel.is/c++draft/format.formatter.spec#note-1
But I suppose you can contrive this kind of custom formatter, or the inverse,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112607
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely ---
basic_string would be a valid program-defined specialization
though.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112607
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely ---
That is not a valid specialization since it doesn't depend on a program-defined
type.
