From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 31891 invoked by alias); 24 Apr 2012 22:46:23 -0000 Received: (qmail 31881 invoked by uid 22791); 24 Apr 2012 22:46:22 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-4.4 required=5.0 tests=ALL_TRUSTED,AWL,BAYES_00,KHOP_THREADED 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, 24 Apr 2012 22:46:10 +0000 From: "pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org" To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug c++/53000] Conditional operator does not behave as standardized Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2012 22:46:00 -0000 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: pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org X-Bugzilla-Status: NEW X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3 X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: --- X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: Message-ID: In-Reply-To: References: X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/ Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" MIME-Version: 1.0 Mailing-List: contact gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-bugs-owner@gcc.gnu.org X-SW-Source: 2012-04/txt/msg02183.txt.bz2 http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53000 --- Comment #6 from Andrew Pinski 2012-04-24 22:45:54 UTC --- A good question from an semi outsider, which way is the standards committee leaning? And is there a big disagreement about the defect report? I think if there is a disagreement, then we should move slower but if there is a good consensus of how they want to fix the standard, then we should move towards that direction as fast as possible.