public inbox for gcc-bugs@sourceware.org
help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "StevenSun2021 at hotmail dot com" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug c++/99686] ICE when using both concepts and full specialization
Date: Thu, 25 Mar 2021 11:35:13 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <bug-99686-4-7zEXgI8pTC@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <bug-99686-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99686

--- Comment #3 from Steven Sun <StevenSun2021 at hotmail dot com> ---
@W E Brown: I got your idea. So are all uses like this ill-formed? This seems
unexpected for me. I would expect the complete specialization is full
specialization for both primary templates.

I also find facts that support your idea:

If I modify the full specialization to 
--------------------
template <>
void func<int&&> (int&& arg){}
--------------------
It compiles. See https://godbolt.org/z/fh9Mx7Krr


If I modify the full specialization to 
--------------------
template <>
void func<int> (int&& arg){}
--------------------
It produce the same ICE output as comment 1. See
https://godbolt.org/z/eMa5YcrrE

It looks like the compiler doesn't knows which primary template to specialize.

I look up in the C++20 standard, and did not find anything about 2 primary
templates exists.

The code in Comment 1 compiles for g++ 6.1 to 9.3, then breaks since 10.1 (all
under -std=c++17 -fconcepts).

In conclusion, this makes sences but I didn't see that coming. Anyway, I think
a possible improvement is make ICE to an error of "ambigous full
specialization". Or even better, a change in C++23 standard.

  parent reply	other threads:[~2021-03-25 11:35 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2021-03-20 19:21 [Bug c++/99686] New: ICE when concepts on C++17 when providing both T&& and const T& specialization StevenSun2021 at hotmail dot com
2021-03-20 19:43 ` [Bug c++/99686] " StevenSun2021 at hotmail dot com
2021-03-21  6:51 ` [Bug c++/99686] ICE when using both concepts and full specialization webrown.cpp at gmail dot com
2021-03-25 11:35 ` StevenSun2021 at hotmail dot com [this message]
2021-03-25 12:32 ` webrown.cpp at gmail dot com
2021-05-05  0:09 ` StevenSun2021 at hotmail dot com
2021-05-05  0:33 ` StevenSun2021 at hotmail dot com
2021-05-07 13:15 ` StevenSun2021 at hotmail dot com
2021-05-07 14:35 ` StevenSun2021 at hotmail dot com
2022-12-07 15:55 ` [Bug c++/99686] ICE when using concepts on function template before c++20 (Reason already found) ppalka at gcc dot gnu.org

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=bug-99686-4-7zEXgI8pTC@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/ \
    --to=gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org \
    --cc=gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).