[Bug c++/64959] New: SFINAE in UDLs

[Bug c++/64959] New: SFINAE in UDLs

[d.truby at warwick dot ac.uk]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64959

            Bug ID: 64959
           Summary: SFINAE in UDLs
           Product: gcc
           Version: 4.9.3
            Status: UNCONFIRMED
          Severity: normal
          Priority: P3
         Component: c++
          Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
          Reporter: d.truby at warwick dot ac.uk

Created attachment 34684
  --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=34684&action=edit
Preprocessed minimal code example

enable_if cannot be used to select between overloads of UDLs in C++11. This
should not be the case since the standard (section 2.14.8) requires the UDL to
be translated to a normal function call (where enable_if should be able to be
used in this way).

The attached code is a small example demonstrating the problem (note: clang
allows this example).

[Bug c++/64959] SFINAE in UDLs

[ville.voutilainen at gmail dot com]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64959

Ville Voutilainen <ville.voutilainen at gmail dot com> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Keywords|                            |rejects-valid
             Status|UNCONFIRMED                 |NEW
   Last reconfirmed|                            |2015-02-08
                 CC|                            |ville.voutilainen at gmail dot com
     Ever confirmed|0                           |1
      Known to fail|                            |4.8.2, 4.9.1, 5.0

[Bug c++/64959] SFINAE in UDLs

[andrea.azzarone at canonical dot com]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64959

Andrea Azzarone <andrea.azzarone at canonical dot com> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |andrea.azzarone at canonical dot c
                   |                            |om

--- Comment #1 from Andrea Azzarone <andrea.azzarone at canonical dot com> ---
Created attachment 34706
  --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=34706&action=edit
Proposed fix to allow the use of enable_if for UDLs.

[Bug c++/64959] SFINAE in UDLs

[jason at gcc dot gnu.org]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64959

--- Comment #2 from Jason Merrill <jason at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
Author: jason
Date: Thu Feb 12 20:21:34 2015
New Revision: 220656

URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=220656&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
    PR c++/64959
    * parser.c (lookup_literal_operator): Return all candidates.
    (cp_parser_userdef_char_literal): Simplify error handling.
    (cp_parser_userdef_numeric_literal):  Pass tf_warning_or_error.
    (cp_parser_userdef_string_literal): Pass tf_warning_or_error.
    Also give higher priority to standard string UDL operator.

Added:
    trunk/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/cpp0x/udlit-namespace-ambiguous.C
    trunk/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/cpp0x/udlit-namespace-using-directive.C
    trunk/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/cpp0x/udlit-sfinae-neg.C
    trunk/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/cpp0x/udlit-sfinae.C
    trunk/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/cpp1y/udlit-char-template-sfinae-neg.C
    trunk/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/cpp1y/udlit-char-template-sfinae.C
   
trunk/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/cpp1y/udlit-char-template-vs-std-literal-operator.C
Modified:
    trunk/gcc/cp/ChangeLog
    trunk/gcc/cp/parser.c
    trunk/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/cpp0x/udlit-resolve.C

[Bug c++/64959] SFINAE in UDLs

[paolo.carlini at oracle dot com]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64959

Paolo Carlini <paolo.carlini at oracle dot com> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|NEW                         |RESOLVED
         Resolution|---                         |FIXED
   Target Milestone|---                         |5.0
      Known to fail|5.0                         |

--- Comment #3 from Paolo Carlini <paolo.carlini at oracle dot com> ---
I suppose we can close this.