https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108965
--- Comment #11 from Christopher Friedt <chrisfriedt at gmail dot com> --- (In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #9) > (In reply to Christopher Friedt from comment #8) > > My code is clearly valid C++ according to g++ :-) > > Maybe you mean clang++ but even then, no it's not: I was talking about the code at the linked PR. It's valid C++11 according to g++ (and clang++). I was not talking about the cppreference.com example (which is not my code, which is what you seem to be referencing as my code). I did not compile the cppreference.com code with -pedantic, but if you feel you need to in order to illustrate that you are right here, by all means. I can also run a command that illustrates my point as well. See? $ clang++ -std=c++11 -o /tmp/main /tmp/main.cpp $ echo $? 0 So really, if you're trying to tell me that my observations did not actually occur, that is, by definition, gaslighting. > I commented explaining that it's not in the C++ standard, and followed up > in the github issue where the real bug is. The comments you made on the github pr do not highlight "where the real bug is" because the code is not buggy - it produces the desired results. > "I didn't have to do any of that, and I certainly won't bother doing so again" Works for me!
