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 BB539383F879; Fri, 15 May 2020 13:57:40 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org BB539383F879
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org;
 s=default; t=1589551060;
 bh=kFmN6NpS/uaWCZhOMcKVrA9rmVahR7vjw9GraWDCmxI=;
 h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From;
 b=oFH4j8rquU1lJv2+hyigNxmi0gsecIQymRv/pcT9JtJ5WDluDdgxhu+7uBPQ4Utv7
 OllUKxrZVrgAwVD0r9AUnnAHU1ptLzw5MqKapSpwWOaqfIEbXAxUzscD5oJOQO+NeR
 LmYlvwr89qfl8JxSWwcmgK3kCpzxtTOQUcrGWShw=
From: "ppalka at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug c++/95132] Concept checked after auto return type deduction
Date: Fri, 15 May 2020 13:57:40 +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: 10.1.0
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: 
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: ppalka at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Status: WAITING
X-Bugzilla-Resolution: 
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: ---
X-Bugzilla-Flags: 
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: cc
Message-ID: <bug-95132-4-NhtsR8AtTQ@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-95132-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-95132-4@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: <http://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: <http://gcc.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gcc-bugs>,
 <mailto:gcc-bugs-request@gcc.gnu.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 15 May 2020 13:57:40 -0000

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D95132

Patrick Palka <ppalka at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |ppalka at gcc dot gnu.org

--- Comment #2 from Patrick Palka <ppalka at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
(In reply to Francesco Biscani from comment #0)
> This is problematic because it means that another concept that would check
> whether or not bar() can be called with a specific argument type would fa=
il
> with a hard compile time error, instead of marking the concept as not
> satisfied.

Would you have a concrete testcase for this behavior?=