https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106223
--- Comment #8 from Nimrod <nimrodcowboy at gmail dot com> --- (In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #6) > (In reply to Nimrod from comment #4) > > https://timsong-cpp.github.io/cppwp/n4659/func.require#3 > > "...A forwarding call wrapper is a call wrapper that can be called with an > > This is irrelevant, std::forward isn't a call wrapper. Yes. In which context, what I want to prove is the wording about "forwarding" in the standard isn't related to the value of the object. I was thinking I can provide a better example without ruining the std::forward implementation. I just add a log in the specialization of std::forward and do nothing else. (to record A is being "forwarded") like, template<> A&& forward(A& a) noexcept { std::cout << "recorded\n"; return std::move(a); } I don't think this example will bring more help in this discussion. I was trying to reproduce some more cases using std::swap but failed. > Anyway, specializing any function template from namespace std is explicitly > forbidden since C++20, because it's not necessary or sensible to do it. Ok. It's fair to me. A little off-topic question, what's the GCC's attitude to features with defects being fixed in newer standards? Will GCC still support them as the older standard says?
