https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111264
--- Comment #9 from Eric Feng <efric at gcc dot gnu.org> --- (In reply to Hans-Peter Nilsson from comment #4) > > If we move past the difference in semantics of the idioms in the patch, I > still don't see why there actually was error for the original syntax. There > must be something in the difference between the hash_map and hash_set > declarations. Eagerly awaiting comments on the patch. (Probably not the > best way to learn recent C++ standards, but believe it or not, I'm exposed > to a worse way, on another track... :) Thanks again for the patch, Hans-Peter. For those interested, I try to dive into why hash_map caused an error here whilst hash_set was fine in the original syntax in the body of this e-mail: https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc/2023-September/242404.html. In short: I think the issue was due to the compiler having trouble disambiguating between which hash_map constructor to use in the original syntax in C++11. Please feel free to chime in and correct my hypothesis. Cheers!
