http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51609
--- Comment #3 from Daniel Krügler <daniel.kruegler at googlemail dot com> 2011-12-19 07:07:52 UTC --- (In reply to comment #2) > While I agree the code is reasonable, I think an LWG issue is needed, because > I > don't think GCC's behaviour is in conflict with the standard. I agree, my argumentation was solely based on the text and I overlooked the difference in the signatures in the class synopsis. So, this issue should be closed as invalid.
