From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-bugs-return-359657-listarch-gcc-bugs=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 18553 invoked by alias); 14 Jun 2011 12:34:55 -0000
Received: (qmail 18420 invoked by uid 22791); 14 Jun 2011 12:34:54 -0000
X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.7 required=5.0	tests=ALL_TRUSTED,AWL,BAYES_00
X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org
Received: from localhost (HELO gcc.gnu.org) (127.0.0.1)    by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Tue, 14 Jun 2011 12:34:39 +0000
From: "jarrydb at cse dot unsw.edu.au" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug c++/49399] [C++0x] substitution failure error
X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC
X-Bugzilla-Type: changed
X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None
X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc
X-Bugzilla-Component: c++
X-Bugzilla-Keywords:
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: jarrydb at cse dot unsw.edu.au
X-Bugzilla-Status: UNCONFIRMED
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: ---
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields:
Message-ID: <bug-49399-4-2E7vrWR0jZ@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-49399-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-49399-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Date: Tue, 14 Jun 2011 12:34:00 -0000
Mailing-List: contact gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <gcc-bugs.gcc.gnu.org>
List-Archive: <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-bugs/>
List-Post: <mailto:gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org>
Sender: gcc-bugs-owner@gcc.gnu.org
X-SW-Source: 2011-06/txt/msg01183.txt.bz2

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D49399

--- Comment #7 from Jarryd Beck <jarrydb at cse dot unsw.edu.au> 2011-06-14=
 12:34:35 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #6)
> (In reply to comment #4)
> > Ah, I see. Well the example you gave also doesn't compile. This is exac=
tly what
> > the boost library does too, I missed that part in their code, meaning t=
hat
> > parts of boost no longer compile with gcc 4.7.
>=20
> And I know it doesn't, as I said "G++ doesn't accept it because access ch=
ecking
> is not done as part of the substitution process yet."
>=20
> Even when that's done, it will only be valid C++0x not, C++03.

Ok, I thought that was what you meant. Does this however mean that this bug=
 is
now valid for C++0x, given what they say in the link that you gave?

"If a substitution results in an invalid type or expression, type deduction
fails. An invalid type or expression is one that would be ill-formed if wri=
tten
using the substituted arguments. [Note: Access checking is not done as part=
 of
the substitution process. =E2=80=94end note]"

Should a bug for the reverse also be filed for the C++03 part of gcc? I won=
der
what boost mpl people would say about a bug report since this actually works
even though it's wrong...