From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 128677 invoked by alias); 15 Dec 2016 21:30:37 -0000 Mailing-List: contact overseers-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: overseers-owner@sourceware.org Received: (qmail 128566 invoked by uid 89); 15 Dec 2016 21:30:35 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-1.4 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,FREEMAIL_FROM,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 spammy=5.2, Hx-languages-length:1079, za, Za X-HELO: mail-wm0-f44.google.com Received: from mail-wm0-f44.google.com (HELO mail-wm0-f44.google.com) (74.125.82.44) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Thu, 15 Dec 2016 21:30:25 +0000 Received: by mail-wm0-f44.google.com with SMTP id g23so4877476wme.1 for ; Thu, 15 Dec 2016 13:30:25 -0800 (PST) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to :content-transfer-encoding; bh=AXx0oJXbOnB4LJBmjEgYejPx4DXj8Z3EL6QyZeCDa1k=; b=J7PT4EOB+Q+ET6upp+9WXrcEnJIAjBP4urDzVwY2rBEr346PT52c4NjxabjIS/fpi8 4oNQJsY9uGnF1FWKUz6xPO6P7EF7y2jeS0NSKT2mj9N30xzdqmPx0zSRf9JmwapN+gRP tICf1ED/DzHYjzdCHTYikM0X2Pgnt6sZYa9Ne8uNDA20wYRljx5R3Ejwl5puorlvC8Eo SyXosU9f/pShajvsRAfZV3pRH36uZrQFMCz6RCJttZvVCGSeiCcwIkqUNnUMzEM/GlA6 0rkDUvO4c42lJUhXDIrETU3PsK2yQygB+/FzmI6zJIwY8aVRUy9e+m2usVh4HL9v1/Kx k4Ag== X-Gm-Message-State: AKaTC00cfvWC6hsrVkaoUrezF7Ii2oORrFM21mjUa3YqRKsi6s+HM8EiVIdfr6aKBM7baoGYwKgr2wKDUDLV4Q== X-Received: by 10.25.221.208 with SMTP id w77mr1113087lfi.39.1481837423399; Thu, 15 Dec 2016 13:30:23 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.25.74.214 with HTTP; Thu, 15 Dec 2016 13:30:22 -0800 (PST) From: =?UTF-8?Q?Maciej_Za=C5=82ucki?= Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2016 21:30:00 -0000 Message-ID: Subject: Possible bug / explanation needed To: overseers@gcc.gnu.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-SW-Source: 2016-q4/txt/msg00104.txt.bz2 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-comp= ile-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 Za=C5=82ucki