be worth adding that
testcase to the DR455 discussion.
I think let's go with this patch and bump down the "partial specialization
isn't more specialized" diagnostic from permerror to on-by-default pedwarn.
Ah, sounds good to me. like so?
-- >8 --
Subject: [PATCH] c++: par
ent type; it might be worth adding that
> testcase to the DR455 discussion.
>
> I think let's go with this patch and bump down the "partial specialization
> isn't more specialized" diagnostic from permerror to on-by-default pedwarn.
Ah, sounds good to me. like so?
-- >8 --
On 4/22/22 15:27, Patrick Palka wrote:
On Fri, 22 Apr 2022, Patrick Palka wrote:
Here ever since r11-6483-ge2e2f3f2c9400f we're rejecting and crashing
(respectively) on two testcases that we used to accept in C++17 mode.
Both testcases declare partial specializations for which the primary
On Fri, 22 Apr 2022, Patrick Palka wrote:
> Here ever since r11-6483-ge2e2f3f2c9400f we're rejecting and crashing
> (respectively) on two testcases that we used to accept in C++17 mode.
> Both testcases declare partial specializations for which the primary
> template contains an NTTP with
Whoops, this patch is identical to
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2022-April/593502.html that
I sent about an hour ago, sorry for the noise.
On Fri, Apr 22, 2022 at 2:33 PM Patrick Palka wrote:
>
> Here ever since r11-6483-ge2e2f3f2c9400f we're rejecting and crashing
> (respectively)
Here ever since r11-6483-ge2e2f3f2c9400f we're rejecting and crashing
(respectively) on two testcases that we used to accept in C++17 mode.
Both testcases declare partial specializations for which the primary
template contains an NTTP with dependent type, but the correctness of
these partial
Here ever since r11-6483-ge2e2f3f2c9400f we're rejecting and crashing
(respectively) on two testcases that we used to accept in C++17 mode.
Both testcases declare partial specializations for which the primary
template contains an NTTP with dependent type, but the correctness of
these partial
