https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105289
--- Comment #6 from Michael Steinberg <michsteinb at gmail dot com> --- (In reply to Patrick Palka from comment #4) > (In reply to Michael Steinberg from comment #2) > > Created attachment 52851 [details] > > Working modified partial specialization > > <snip> > > I suppose ice-on-invalid-code might be the more convenient classification > since after the above patch we now just reject the original testcase instead > of crashing. This way the question of validity is left entirely to PR86193. Even though this is my code that worked before, I would lean towards calling it invalid given the standard. ;) But on the other hand, one would need to take into consideration, if deducing parameters by use of a single specialization with an empty primary template is a usage common enough for a special rule allowing for the base template to set an implicit lower bar to the specializations. I don't mind repeating the constraints though.
