public inbox for gcc-bugs@sourceware.org help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "webrown.cpp at gmail 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 12:32:50 +0000 [thread overview] Message-ID: <bug-99686-4-Tqb01mQzVx@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 #4 from W E Brown <webrown.cpp at gmail dot com> --- (In reply to Steven Sun from comment #3) > .... I would expect the complete specialization is full > specialization for both primary templates. No, any given explicit or partial specialization can be a specialization of only one primary template. (Suppose that two overloaded primary templates had different signatures. How then, in general, could both be specialized by any single explicit or partial specialization?) > ... > 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. Given two or more very similar primary templates, C++ already specifies an algorithm (known as "partial* ordering") to determine which one is being specialized by a given explicit or partial specialization. Therefore, unless you can find some issue with that algorithm, I see no reason to propose any language change in this area; partial ordering has been part of C++ for several decades. (However, I speculate that your test cases may have exposed a bug in GCC's implementation of partial ordering, possibly just a failure to diagnose an ambiguous situation. I'm sure the GCC internals experts will provide proper diagnosis and remediation in due course.) * The algorithn is termed "partial" because there are cases that can't be decided and therefore result in an ill-formed program. If you'd like some further details on this topic, I can recommend my video 😊 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nfIX8yWlByY.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-03-25 12:32 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 2021-03-25 12:32 ` webrown.cpp at gmail dot com [this message] 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-Tqb01mQzVx@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: linkBe 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).