From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: by sourceware.org (Postfix, from userid 48)
 id 4F119385840C; Tue, 26 Apr 2022 16:13:55 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 4F119385840C
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
X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC
X-Bugzilla-Type: changed
X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None
X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc
X-Bugzilla-Component: c++
X-Bugzilla-Version: 11.0
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: ice-on-invalid-code
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: michsteinb at gmail dot com
X-Bugzilla-Status: ASSIGNED
X-Bugzilla-Resolution: 
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P2
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: ppalka at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: 11.4
X-Bugzilla-Flags: 
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: 
Message-ID: <bug-105289-4-P4pfl3YAyw@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-105289-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-105289-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
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 <gcc-bugs.gcc.gnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://gcc.gnu.org/mailman/options/gcc-bugs>,
 <mailto:gcc-bugs-request@gcc.gnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-bugs/>
List-Post: <mailto:gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gcc-bugs-request@gcc.gnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://gcc.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gcc-bugs>,
 <mailto:gcc-bugs-request@gcc.gnu.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 26 Apr 2022 16:13:55 -0000

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D105289

--- 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>
>=20
> I suppose ice-on-invalid-code might be the more convenient classification
> since after the above patch we now just reject the original testcase inst=
ead
> of crashing.  This way the question of validity is left entirely to PR861=
93.

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

But on the other hand, one would need to take into consideration, if deduci=
ng
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.=