From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: by sourceware.org (Postfix, from userid 48) id D7A68386197C; Tue, 14 Jul 2020 15:22:38 +0000 (GMT) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org D7A68386197C DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org; s=default; t=1594740158; bh=17HS3SZ/7vbRp3VcQ5D62AP1vZfurnmpaZcV9mnK8N4=; h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=XHxYHw1URHDIz9OGX2mr0UpKLqK9jwiSi9gToF+JnlWB4WeNscQT2tWLD6ib2ELxz +Whx0dsn0s2AAIuuiEBRNtQnNRCsuWjwbQQWnHs4S1+ZMNGmLLe7UgAo/UqxIHAGtv Tq6L2Mn7ID8/q7TfPn9aXHEEU7G+w+GJ2QC/Uha8= From: "jakub at gcc dot gnu.org" To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug c++/96185] Enhancement: Please add a builtin to count bindings in [dcl.struct.bind] Date: Tue, 14 Jul 2020 15:22:38 +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: X-Bugzilla-Severity: enhancement X-Bugzilla-Who: jakub at gcc dot gnu.org X-Bugzilla-Status: UNCONFIRMED 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: In-Reply-To: References: 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 List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 14 Jul 2020 15:22:38 -0000 https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D96185 Jakub Jelinek changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |jakub at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek --- (In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #3) > Not as a DR, absolutely not. There is no defect. >=20 > It could be supported in non-strict modes as an extension, if the syntax > doesn't conflict with anything a valid program would use. Yeah, usually it is something with pedwarn, i.e. accepted in -std=3Dc++2b/-std=3Dgnu++2b mocdx, a warning in -std=3Dgnu++20/-std=3Dgnu++= 17 etc. and an error with -std=3Dc++20/-std=3Dc++17.=