public inbox for gcc-bugs@sourceware.org
help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "michsteinb at gmail dot com" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug c++/105289] [11 Regression] ICE on partial specialization
Date: Tue, 26 Apr 2022 16:13:55 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <bug-105289-4-P4pfl3YAyw@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <bug-105289-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105289

--- Comment #6 from Michael Steinberg <michsteinb at gmail dot com> ---
(In reply to Patrick Palka from comment #4)
> (In reply to Michael Steinberg from comment #2)
> > Created attachment 52851 [details]
> > Working modified partial specialization
> > <snip>
> 
> I suppose ice-on-invalid-code might be the more convenient classification
> since after the above patch we now just reject the original testcase instead
> of crashing.  This way the question of validity is left entirely to PR86193.

Even though this is my code that worked before, I would lean towards calling it
invalid given the standard. ;)

But on the other hand, one would need to take into consideration, if deducing
parameters by use of a single specialization with an empty primary template is
a usage common enough for a special rule allowing for the base template to set
an implicit lower bar to the specializations. I don't mind repeating the
constraints though.

  parent reply	other threads:[~2022-04-26 16:13 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2022-04-15 22:59 [Bug c++/105289] New: " michsteinb at gmail dot com
2022-04-18 18:24 ` [Bug c++/105289] [11/12 Regression] " ppalka at gcc dot gnu.org
2022-04-19  9:23 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
2022-04-22 19:13 ` michsteinb at gmail dot com
2022-04-26  1:49 ` cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org
2022-04-26 15:19 ` ppalka at gcc dot gnu.org
2022-04-26 15:19 ` [Bug c++/105289] [11 " ppalka at gcc dot gnu.org
2022-04-26 16:13 ` michsteinb at gmail dot com [this message]
2022-04-28 15:39 ` cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org
2023-05-21 14:13 ` ppalka at gcc dot gnu.org

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=bug-105289-4-P4pfl3YAyw@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/ \
    --to=gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org \
    --cc=gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body. 
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).