From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-return-196401-listarch-gcc=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 50782 invoked by alias); 19 Jun 2018 00:07:46 -0000
Mailing-List: contact gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <gcc.gcc.gnu.org>
List-Archive: <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/>
List-Post: <mailto:gcc@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Help: <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/>
Sender: gcc-owner@gcc.gnu.org
Received: (qmail 50655 invoked by uid 89); 19 Jun 2018 00:07:45 -0000
Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none
X-Virus-Found: No
X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=2.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_50,KAM_LAZY_DOMAIN_SECURITY,KAM_NUMSUBJECT,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE autolearn=no version=3.3.2 spammy=deeplynested, deeply-nested, H*Ad:D*nz, H*f:sk:5B270A8
X-HELO: us2-ob3-2.mailhostbox.com
Received: from us2-ob3-2.mailhostbox.com (HELO us2-ob3-2.mailhostbox.com) (208.91.198.232) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Tue, 19 Jun 2018 00:07:44 +0000
Received: from [192.168.1.64] (115-188-136-130-vdsl.bb.spark.co.nz [115.188.136.130])	(Authenticated sender: matt@soulstudios.co.nz)	by us2.outbound.mailhostbox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 99DD9CDC9A;	Tue, 19 Jun 2018 00:07:41 +0000 (GMT)
Subject: Re: Apparent deeply-nested missing error bug with gcc 7.3
To: Jonathan Wakely <jwakely.gcc@gmail.com>
Cc: "gcc@gcc.gnu.org" <gcc@gcc.gnu.org>
References: <5B270A8F.4090802@soulstudios.co.nz> <CAH6eHdSA+hYV=9Jzpk2TF=Gj042u_t7CciC=L_sQ9ZTCH2UoOg@mail.gmail.com> <CAH6eHdTUoujUeqDdykLatVcbRjf_ixEoZnVs=s864+Ha9hEchQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Soul Studios <matt@soulstudios.co.nz>
Message-ID: <824b3945-4b9a-6c65-40f8-2f0800b47ee8@soulstudios.co.nz>
Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2018 00:31:00 -0000
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.5.2
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAH6eHdTUoujUeqDdykLatVcbRjf_ixEoZnVs=s864+Ha9hEchQ@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-CMAE-Score: 0
X-CMAE-Analysis: v=2.2 cv=fOdJ5dSe c=1 sm=1 tr=0	a=9G+dizW/icOyw6Ak0BVi5Q==:117 a=9G+dizW/icOyw6Ak0BVi5Q==:17	a=IkcTkHD0fZMA:10 a=vkRcAXDrynmC7ZRSck8A:9 a=QEXdDO2ut3YA:10
X-IsSubscribed: yes
X-SW-Source: 2018-06/txt/msg00202.txt.bz2

> 
> It's never called.
> 
> I added a call to abort() to that function, and the tests all pass. So
> the function is never used, so GCC never compiles it and doesn't
> notice that the return type is invalid. That's allowed by the
> standard. The compiler is not required to diagnose ill-formed code in
> uninstantiated templates.
> 

As I mentioned in the original message, it is called several times.
Both MSVC and Clang pick up the error, but GCC does not. It's a bug.