https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41958
stinkingmadgod at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||stinkingmadgod at gmail
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41958
frankhb1989 at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||frankhb1989 at gmail dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41958
--- Comment #9 from Jason Merrill jason at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-11-19
13:42:06 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #8)
The note describing the resolution of 1395 says preferring an omitted
parameter over a parameter pack.
omitted parameter
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41958
Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41958
--- Comment #4 from Nathan Ridge zeratul976 at hotmail dot com 2012-11-18
22:28:59 UTC ---
I filed the same bug for clang, and I was pointed to DR1395 [1]. GCC and
clang's behaviour are both in line with the resolution of this DR.
I
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41958
--- Comment #5 from Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com 2012-11-19
00:21:29 UTC ---
Oh yes, nice. I'm only a bit nervous because the status is still drafting but
it looks like there is very solid agreement about the issue.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41958
--- Comment #6 from Jason Merrill jason at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-11-19
01:57:16 UTC ---
No. The resolution of 1395 will not make the testcase in #1 valid, only the
case where you have a degenerate overload, like
templatetypename T,
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41958
--- Comment #7 from Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com 2012-11-19
02:11:53 UTC ---
I see...
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41958
--- Comment #8 from Nathan Ridge zeratul976 at hotmail dot com 2012-11-19
03:49:39 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #6)
No. The resolution of 1395 will not make the testcase in #1 valid, only the
case where you have a degenerate overload,
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41958
Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed|2009-11-05 22:41:18 |2012-07-05
--- Comment #1 from jason at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-11-05 22:41 ---
That is, I think this should be ambiguous since the WP says that unused default
args aren't considered in partial ordering (14.6.6.2):
templatetypename T, typename... Args
int f(const T, Args...);
templatetypename T
11 matches
Mail list logo
