* Possible bug / explanation needed
@ 2016-12-15 21:30 Maciej Załucki
0 siblings, 0 replies; only message in thread
From: Maciej Załucki @ 2016-12-15 21:30 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: overseers
Hi,
Bugzilla restricted me from creating an account and redirected me to
this email address. If it's possible, please let me create an account
for future.
Regarding possible bug, it has been discussed on stackoverflow recently.
https://stackoverflow.com/questions/41143524/should-the-following-code-compile-according-to-c-standard/
Basically, it is possible to create ambigious specializations for
template classes. My question is if it's expected behaviour or
overseen bug. One of such cases has been possible only with GCC 5.1
and fixed in 5.2
https://godbolt.org/g/iVCbdm
Despite that, it looks like slightly changed example still can produce
two specializations which will compile and can't be used later due to
ambiguity.
https://godbolt.org/g/6oNGDP
My first thought was that it's bug introduced with N3651 support
(C++14 variable templates) to GCC 5.1 and partially fixed in GCC 5.2.
Can I get some backgroud for that or could you redirect me to some
place where I could get more information about that?
Sincerely,
Maciej M Załucki
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] only message in thread
only message in thread, other threads:[~2016-12-15 21:30 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: (only message) (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2016-12-15 21:30 Possible bug / explanation needed Maciej Załucki
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).