[Bug c++/97772] New: Wording of GCC's error message when calling lvalue-ref qualified member function on temporary object

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97772 Bug ID: 97772 Summary: Wording of GCC's error message when calling lvalue-ref qualified member function on temporary object Product: gcc Version: 10.2.0 Status:

[Bug c++/103403] New: Decltype of rvalue reference

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103403 Bug ID: 103403 Summary: Decltype of rvalue reference Product: gcc Version: 11.2.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Keywords: accepts-invalid Severity: normal Priority: P3

[Bug c++/103403] [11/12 Regression] auto return type with a trailing return type of decl(auto) uses rvalue reference type instead of reference type

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103403 --- Comment #4 from Enrico Maria De Angelis --- So there is a relation between this problem and PR 78209. At least a cause-effect relation.

[Bug c++/106957] New: compiler error when calling lambda in decltype in trailing return type of function templated on T when passing T{} to the lambda

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106957 Bug ID: 106957 Summary: compiler error when calling lambda in decltype in trailing return type of function templated on T when passing T{} to the lambda Product: gcc

[Bug c++/109323] New: No error when neither of return_value or return_void is defined

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109323 Bug ID: 109323 Summary: No error when neither of return_value or return_void is defined Product: gcc Version: 12.2.1 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug c++/109323] No error when neither of return_value or return_void is defined

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109323 --- Comment #2 from Enrico Maria De Angelis --- Created attachment 54790 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=54790=edit Attachment for report 109323

[Bug c++/109323] No error when neither of return_value or return_void is defined

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109323 --- Comment #3 from Enrico Maria De Angelis --- However, I'm not entirely sure (not anymore now that I've read the standard more carefully) that not having any of those two memebrs is an error.

[Bug c++/109323] No error when neither of return_value or return_void is defined

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109323 --- Comment #4 from Enrico Maria De Angelis --- The more I read the standard, specifically http://eel.is/c++draft/dcl.fct.def.coroutine#6 and http://eel.is/c++draft/stmt.return.coroutine, the more I'm convinced that it's just fine that a

[Bug c++/109323] No error when neither of return_value or return_void is defined

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109323 --- Comment #5 from Enrico Maria De Angelis --- I've asked some feeback here https://stackoverflow.com/questions/75891694/is-it-legal-for-a-coroutines-promise-type-to-lack-both-return-void-and-return-v