https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92268
--- Comment #12 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Author: redi
Date: Thu Oct 31 13:17:48 2019
New Revision: 277667
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=277667=gcc=rev
Log:
Remove PR 92268 workaround and fix new test failures
With the compiler bug fixed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92268
--- Comment #11 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Yes those tests exercise some weird, contrived corner cases. I messed some up
and will fix them (and remove my workaround for this bug - thanks!)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92268
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92268
--- Comment #9 from Jason Merrill ---
Author: jason
Date: Thu Oct 31 02:01:16 2019
New Revision: 277654
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=277654=gcc=rev
Log:
PR c++/92268 - hard error satisfying return-type-requirement
Previously we
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92268
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92268
--- Comment #7 from Jason Merrill ---
Created attachment 47136
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=47136=edit
patch for the simple case
This untested patch fixes my testcase and Jon's, though not the more complex
case. Not
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92268
--- Comment #6 from Jason Merrill ---
(In reply to Jason Merrill from comment #5)
> On further thought, I'm not sure normalizing the dependent form is really
> necessary, either here or for nested-requirements, as long as we get the
> proper
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92268
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|Constraint normalization|[concepts] hard error
