From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-return-196427-listarch-gcc=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 27131 invoked by alias); 21 Jun 2018 07:39:12 -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 27094 invoked by uid 89); 21 Jun 2018 07:39:11 -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=UPDATE, uninstantiated, Hence, emplace_front
X-HELO: us2-ob1-4.mailhostbox.com
Received: from us2-ob1-4.mailhostbox.com (HELO us2-ob1-4.mailhostbox.com) (162.210.70.57) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Thu, 21 Jun 2018 07:39:10 +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 5C7D1182AC0;	Thu, 21 Jun 2018 07:39:06 +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> <d5dc5dfa-983e-ec12-9223-72f4949f4325@soulstudios.co.nz> <CAH6eHdQQvcsKz+MCjbcBTM73LN+UA2oRvmONekG7PxzjRqhNZQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Soul Studios <matt@soulstudios.co.nz>
Message-ID: <c6bd9ed6-843e-3c2b-2747-e7bdfc9bc033@soulstudios.co.nz>
Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2018 08:21:00 -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: <CAH6eHdQQvcsKz+MCjbcBTM73LN+UA2oRvmONekG7PxzjRqhNZQ@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=UKitJGXy c=1 sm=1 tr=0	a=9G+dizW/icOyw6Ak0BVi5Q==:117 a=9G+dizW/icOyw6Ak0BVi5Q==:17	a=IkcTkHD0fZMA:10 a=_vrEllL0HC3dFAkVmGsA:9 a=QEXdDO2ut3YA:10
X-IsSubscribed: yes
X-SW-Source: 2018-06/txt/msg00228.txt.bz2

>> UPDATE: My bad.
>> The original compiler feature detection on the test suite was broken/not
>> matching the correct libstdc++ versions.
>> Hence the emplace_back/emplace_front tests were not running.
> 
> Told you so :-P
> 
> 
>> However, it does surprise me that GCC doesn't check this code.
> 
> It's a dependent expression so can't be fully checked until
> instantiated -- and as you've discovered, it wasn't being
> instantiated. There's a trade-off between compilation speed and doing
> additional work to check uninstantiated templates with arbitrarily
> complex expressions in them.
> 

Yeah, I get it - saves a lot of time with heavily-templated setups and 
large projects.