From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: by sourceware.org (Postfix, from userid 48) id 538723853815; Mon, 17 May 2021 18:03:18 +0000 (GMT) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 538723853815 From: "richard-gccbugzilla at metafoo dot co.uk" To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug c++/100640] New: GCC permits explicit instantiation of a constructor template with an explicit template argument list Date: Mon, 17 May 2021 18:03:18 +0000 X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC X-Bugzilla-Type: new X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc X-Bugzilla-Component: c++ X-Bugzilla-Version: 12.0 X-Bugzilla-Keywords: X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal X-Bugzilla-Who: richard-gccbugzilla at metafoo dot co.uk X-Bugzilla-Status: UNCONFIRMED X-Bugzilla-Resolution: X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3 X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: --- X-Bugzilla-Flags: X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: bug_id short_desc product version bug_status bug_severity priority component assigned_to reporter target_milestone Message-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/ Auto-Submitted: auto-generated MIME-Version: 1.0 X-BeenThere: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Gcc-bugs mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 17 May 2021 18:03:18 -0000 https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D100640 Bug ID: 100640 Summary: GCC permits explicit instantiation of a constructor template with an explicit template argument list Product: gcc Version: 12.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: c++ Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org Reporter: richard-gccbugzilla at metafoo dot co.uk Target Milestone: --- Example: struct A { template A() {} }; template A::A(); GCC accepts this without even a warning under -std=3Dc++20 -pedantic-errors= , but this is not valid C++. If this is an intentional extension, it doesn't appear to be documented (and presumably should be rejected under -pedantic-errors).=