------- Comment #5 from redi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-06-16 12:11 ------- (In reply to comment #4) > So what the above code actually means? Is it valid?
Yes, it's valid. It declares an explicit specialization, which inhibits the implicit instantiation of the default specialization. In order for the code to be valid a definition must be provided. It isn't, so you get a link error. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44548
