https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114654
Bug ID: 114654
Summary: Alias template cannot be found
Product: gcc
Version: 13.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114537
--- Comment #5 from Fedor Chelnokov ---
Sorry, in above example I had to use `unsigned char` type:
```
#include
struct A { unsigned char a : 7; };
static_assert( std::bit_cast(std::bit_cast(A{1})).a == 1 );
```
This program even after the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114537
--- Comment #1 from Fedor Chelnokov ---
Probably related:
```
#include
struct A { int a: 7; };
static_assert( 1 == std::bit_cast(std::bit_cast(A{1})).a );
```
It looks valid and accepted by MSVC, but GCC prints:
error: '__builtin_bit_cast'
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114536
--- Comment #2 from Fedor Chelnokov ---
May be just fail constant evaluation then instead of evaluating it to 0?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114536
Bug ID: 114536
Summary: wrong constant evaluation of std::bit_cast for bit
fields
Product: gcc
Version: 13.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104282
--- Comment #8 from Fedor Chelnokov ---
One more inconsistency here:
struct A {
A() {}
A(A&&) = delete;
};
struct B : A { };
int main() {
// ok in GCC
B{ A{} };
// error in GCC
B b{ A{} };
}
GCC allows temporary
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114225
--- Comment #4 from Fedor Chelnokov ---
Ok.
At the same time we see that some false positives of this warning are fixed in
Trunk, e.g.
struct A {
int i;
};
struct Getter {
const A * a;
const int & value() const { return a->i; }
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114225
--- Comment #2 from Fedor Chelnokov ---
Please note that this is a regression in GCC 13. GCC 12 (or other compilers) do
not show a warning here: https://godbolt.org/z/Yhfad47xs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113755
Bug ID: 113755
Summary: Class without a viable destructor wrongly accepted
Product: gcc
Version: 13.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113713
Bug ID: 113713
Summary: static_assert result depends on optimization settings
Product: gcc
Version: 13.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113529
Bug ID: 113529
Summary: Incorrect result of requires-expression in case of
function call ambiguity
Product: gcc
Version: 13.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113523
Bug ID: 113523
Summary: A conversion function template can have a deduced
return type
Product: gcc
Version: 13.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113522
Bug ID: 113522
Summary: std::swap cannot be called with explicit template
argument std::array
Product: gcc
Version: 13.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113327
Bug ID: 113327
Summary: std::sleep_for(std::chrono::hours::max()) returns
immediately
Product: gcc
Version: 13.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113303
Bug ID: 113303
Summary: One can assign to const reference in a template
partial specialization
Product: gcc
Version: 13.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113272
--- Comment #2 from Fedor Chelnokov ---
Here is simplified program without #include :
template
struct A {};
template requires requires(){ *p = 0; }
struct A {};
int x = 0;
struct B : A<>, A<(const int *)> {};
GCC fails here because of
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113272
Bug ID: 113272
Summary: Wrong specialization of class template selected
Product: gcc
Version: 13.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113127
Bug ID: 113127
Summary: Unexpected error: '' was not declared
'constexpr'
Product: gcc
Version: 13.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113113
Bug ID: 113113
Summary: False -Wmismatched-new-delete in case of destroying
operator delete
Product: gcc
Version: 13.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112775
Bug ID: 112775
Summary: Class template partial specialization with decltype(n)
is wrongly rejected
Product: gcc
Version: 13.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112744
Bug ID: 112744
Summary: Nested name specifier wrongly produces ambiguity in
accessing static field
Product: gcc
Version: 13.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112620
Bug ID: 112620
Summary: Changes to the referenced object in exception handler
are lost after rethrow
Product: gcc
Version: 13.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112448
Bug ID: 112448
Summary: Constraint expression b rejected
Product: gcc
Version: 13.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112346
--- Comment #4 from Fedor Chelnokov ---
According to referenced stackoverflow discussion, the code is reduced from
https://github.com/vermaseren/form see
https://github.com/vermaseren/form/issues/461
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112346
Bug ID: 112346
Summary: Wrong code produced with -O2
Product: gcc
Version: 13.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94264
Fedor Chelnokov changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||fchelnokov at gmail dot com
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111685
--- Comment #12 from Fedor Chelnokov ---
Related discussion: https://stackoverflow.com/q/77224270/7325599
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111685
--- Comment #10 from Fedor Chelnokov ---
It seems that both libc++ and MS STL implement std::sort without a temporary
object passed to cmp, because they are fine with compiling the following code
in constant expression (where unrelated pointers
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104165
--- Comment #10 from Fedor Chelnokov ---
This issue happens in GCC 13.2 as well:
https://godbolt.org/z/TfGx3YccG
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104661
--- Comment #3 from Fedor Chelnokov ---
Related discussion: https://stackoverflow.com/a/77021213/7325599
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32
Bug ID: 32
Summary: Function redeclaration in local scope breaks constant
expression evaluation
Product: gcc
Version: 13.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=13
Bug ID: 13
Summary: Cannot define friend function of a local class in
namespace scope
Product: gcc
Version: 13.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110619
--- Comment #8 from Fedor Chelnokov ---
Please note that GCC 13 also accepts invalid program (because dangling pointers
were converted in nullptr):
constexpr auto f(int a) {
return
}
constexpr auto g(int b) {
return
}
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110642
Bug ID: 110642
Summary: Undefined behavior in same constant expression is
found not always
Product: gcc
Version: 13.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110619
--- Comment #3 from Fedor Chelnokov ---
I think according to https://eel.is/c++draft/basic.stc#general-4 the function
shall return an "invalid pointer valued". And nullptr is not considered such.
And if one modifies the function slightly (see
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110619
Bug ID: 110619
Summary: Dangling pointer returned from constexpr function
converts in nullptr
Product: gcc
Version: 13.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110584
Bug ID: 110584
Summary: Constant is not visible in nested lambda
Product: gcc
Version: 13.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110570
Bug ID: 110570
Summary: Error reading mutable subobject in constexpr when
object lifetime began within the evaluation of E
Product: gcc
Version: 13.1.0
Status:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110513
Bug ID: 110513
Summary: Invalid use of incomplete type std::bool_constant
inside requires expression
Product: gcc
Version: 13.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110463
--- Comment #5 from Fedor Chelnokov ---
Thanks a lot for a very quick fix!
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110497
Bug ID: 110497
Summary: Wrong error on non-static data member referenced in
concept definition
Product: gcc
Version: 13.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110463
Bug ID: 110463
Summary: Mutable subobject is usable in a constant expression
Product: gcc
Version: 13.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110416
Bug ID: 110416
Summary: Error initializing of const union variable with a
mutable field
Product: gcc
Version: 13.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110191
Bug ID: 110191
Summary: Alias template in function parameter does not match
the nested type it refers to
Product: gcc
Version: 13.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110158
Bug ID: 110158
Summary: Cannot use union with std::string inside in constant
expression
Product: gcc
Version: 13.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110114
Bug ID: 110114
Summary: ICE on calling overloaded function in case of
incomplete argument type
Product: gcc
Version: 13.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109833
Bug ID: 109833
Summary: The value of constexpr anonymous union can be changed
in runtime
Product: gcc
Version: 13.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109523
Bug ID: 109523
Summary: List-initializing constructor of std::vector is
selected erroneously
Product: gcc
Version: 12.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109159
Bug ID: 109159
Summary: explicit constructor is used in copy-initialization
Product: gcc
Version: 12.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108588
--- Comment #1 from Fedor Chelnokov ---
According to this StackOverflow answer, the behavior of GCC is incorrect here:
https://stackoverflow.com/a/75380301/7325599
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108364
Bug ID: 108364
Summary: Construction from prvalue erroneously uses
move-constructor
Product: gcc
Version: 12.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107782
Bug ID: 107782
Summary: constexpr volatile variable is permitted to appear in
a constant expression
Product: gcc
Version: 12.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107744
Bug ID: 107744
Summary: Error in constant evaluation of dynamic_cast
Product: gcc
Version: 12.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107509
Bug ID: 107509
Summary: wrong ambiguous overloaded function error if argument
class is undefined
Product: gcc
Version: 12.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107124
--- Comment #3 from Fedor Chelnokov ---
The latter example is indeed a bug in MSVC:
https://developercommunity.visualstudio.com/t/Cannot-find-template-function-with-expli/1672180
And here is the related discussion according the original issue:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107168
Bug ID: 107168
Summary: Wrong errors for concepts with default lambda not-type
argument
Product: gcc
Version: 12.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101670
--- Comment #3 from Fedor Chelnokov ---
A shorter example:
template concept x = true;
void foo(x auto) {}
Online demo: https://godbolt.org/z/sT74G8crE
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107124
Bug ID: 107124
Summary: Reference template parameter refers to a temporary
object
Product: gcc
Version: 12.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106968
Bug ID: 106968
Summary: ignored noexcept(false) in explicitly-defaulted
functions
Product: gcc
Version: 12.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106599
--- Comment #4 from Fedor Chelnokov ---
And if one deletes copy constructor of A:
struct A {
constexpr A() = default;
constexpr A(const A&) = delete;
constexpr A(int) : A(A()) {}
};
A a(2);
Then Clang rejects the program,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106695
Bug ID: 106695
Summary: Regression 11,12: Explicit copy constructor does not
work for a parameter passed via std::async
Product: gcc
Version: 12.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106599
Bug ID: 106599
Summary: Wrong copy elision in delegating to copy-constructor
Product: gcc
Version: 12.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106247
Fedor Chelnokov changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||fchelnokov at gmail dot com
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106247
Bug ID: 106247
Summary: GCC12 warning in Eigen: array subscript is partly
outside array bounds
Product: gcc
Version: 12.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105699
--- Comment #2 from Fedor Chelnokov ---
Another aspect is that the order of destructors in the class change its
behavior:
#include
template
struct X {
~X() requires (N==1);
virtual ~X();
};
// X is NOT polymorphic in GCC
static_assert(
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105693
Bug ID: 105693
Summary: Requires-clause constructor is not selected
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105563
Bug ID: 105563
Summary: Consteval copy-constructor is allowed in not-constant
expression
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105465
Bug ID: 105465
Summary: С++14 behaviour of inherited constructors broken
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105407
Bug ID: 105407
Summary: std::construct_at during constant evaluation does not
zero-initialize
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105350
Bug ID: 105350
Summary: False constructor warning in case of [[depreacated]]
field in class
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88165
--- Comment #11 from Fedor Chelnokov ---
Thanks a lot for the explanation!
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104661
Bug ID: 104661
Summary: Catching exception by const value when
exception-object has lvalue-reference constructor
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104000
--- Comment #5 from Fedor Chelnokov ---
Based on stackoverflow answer, a modified example was found with the delegation
to consteval constructor:
```
struct A {
int i = 0;
consteval A() = default;
A(const A&) = delete;
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104512
Bug ID: 104512
Summary: [c++20] consteval constructor does not need to
initialize all data members
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104490
Bug ID: 104490
Summary: Cannot inherit consteval constructor
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104418
--- Comment #7 from Fedor Chelnokov ---
Thanks. I submitted Clang bug:
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/issues/53653
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104418
--- Comment #4 from Fedor Chelnokov ---
I think `using B::B;` is not the same as redefining each constructor with the
explicit call of base class constructor `C(int a) : B{(int)a}{}`.
Please consider this example proving it:
```
struct A {
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104418
--- Comment #2 from Fedor Chelnokov ---
My personal feeling is that if a compiler accepts `B b(i);` then it must accept
`C c(i);` as well because of [namespace.udecl] p13:
> Constructors that are named by a using-declaration are treated as
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104418
Bug ID: 104418
Summary: Error inheriting base class constructors by
using-declaration
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83264
--- Comment #9 from Fedor Chelnokov ---
There is a related discussion: https://stackoverflow.com/a/47618530/7325599
And it is noted there that according to [over.ics.rank]/2 just before
[over.ics.rank]/3:
— a standard conversion sequence is a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104383
Bug ID: 104383
Summary: User-defined conversion is preferred over standard-one
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104305
Bug ID: 104305
Summary: Partial specialization with parameter pack is ignored
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92770
Fedor Chelnokov changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||fchelnokov at gmail dot com
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104266
--- Comment #4 from Fedor Chelnokov ---
In your last example, I think Clang is right, because `Y` is not an aggregate
in C++11 due to the presence of default member initializer. And it becomes an
aggregate only in C++14.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104282
--- Comment #3 from Fedor Chelnokov ---
Both Clang and GCC do not change their output either with `-std=c++20` or with
`-std=c++17` options. And both reject the program with -std=c++14`.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88417
Fedor Chelnokov changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||fchelnokov at gmail dot com
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104282
Bug ID: 104282
Summary: Copy elision when initializing a base-class subobject
with aggregate initialization
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104266
Bug ID: 104266
Summary: Temporaries with protected destructor are erroneously
permitted
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104242
--- Comment #1 from Fedor Chelnokov ---
The error message is
invalid use of incomplete type 'std::__conditional_t, std::__not_
> >' {aka 'struct std::is_copy_constructible'}
...
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104242
Bug ID: 104242
Summary: Class with constructor from std::any is not copyable
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104204
--- Comment #2 from Fedor Chelnokov ---
Are you sure that this is a duplicate? Bug 39270 is about explicit
instantiation that is erroneously reported by GCC as specialization. And this
bug is about rejection of real explicit specialization in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104204
Bug ID: 104204
Summary: Ambiguity error for out of class definition of member
function template in the presence of a member function
of the same name
Product: gcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104193
Bug ID: 104193
Summary: Valid function template instantiation rejected
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104192
Bug ID: 104192
Summary: Uninitialized object read is not detected in a
constant expression
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104000
--- Comment #4 from Fedor Chelnokov ---
If we take MSVC into consideration, then it rejects
```
struct A {
consteval A() = default;
A(int) : A() {}
};
```
which GCC accepts. So there is a divergence with MSVC as
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104141
--- Comment #6 from Fedor Chelnokov ---
I agree that Clang behavior here might be wrong. Submitted
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/issues/53334
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104141
--- Comment #4 from Fedor Chelnokov ---
In
```
template concept t = requires{ A::f(); };
```
A::f() does not depend on template parameter, so the rules here are somewhat
different than in T::f(). A possible answer:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104141
Bug ID: 104141
Summary: Access to private member function from requires-clause
accepted
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104111
--- Comment #1 from Fedor Chelnokov ---
Sorry, related discussion: https://stackoverflow.com/q/53263299/7325599
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104111
Bug ID: 104111
Summary: Concept evaluation depends on context where it was
first checked
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
1 - 100 of 184 matches
Mail list logo
