https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118069

Patrick Palka <ppalka at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
   Target Milestone|---                         |14.3

--- Comment #8 from Patrick Palka <ppalka at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
The compile-time issue is fixed for GCC 15 so far.

Note that the testcase is now (quickly) rejected, not sure if that's expected
or not.

$ g++-15 -std=c++23 116069.ii
test_sparse_matrix.cpp: In function ‘int main()’:                               
test_sparse_matrix.cpp:618:47: error: no matching function for call to
‘mafematics::matrix<int, 10, 10,
mafematics::StorageOrder::ROW_MAJOR>::matrix(<brace-enclosed initializer
list>)’                           
test_sparse_matrix.cpp:618:47: note: there are 21 candidates                    
In file included from test_sparse_matrix.cpp:5:                                 
../src/matrix.h:794:12: note: candidate 1: ‘template<class S>  requires 
Matrix<S> constexpr mafematics::matrix<T, H, W, SO>::matrix(const S&) [with T =
int; long unsigned int H = 10; long unsigned int W = 10; m
afematics::StorageOrder SO = mafematics::StorageOrder::ROW_MAJOR]’              
../src/matrix.h:794:12: note: candidate expects 1 argument, 10 provided         
...
test_sparse_matrix.cpp:637:47: error: no matching function for call to
‘mafematics::matrix<int, 10, 10,
mafematics::StorageOrder::ROW_MAJOR>::matrix(<brace-enclosed initializer
list>)’                           
test_sparse_matrix.cpp:637:47: note: there are 21 candidates                    
../src/matrix.h:794:12: note: candidate 1: ‘template<class S>  requires 
Matrix<S> constexpr mafematics::matrix<T, H, W, SO>::matrix(const S&) [with T =
int; long unsigned int H = 10; long unsigned int W = 10; m
afematics::StorageOrder SO = mafematics::StorageOrder::ROW_MAJOR]’              
../src/matrix.h:794:12: note: candidate expects 1 argument, 10 provided         
...


I'm not sure if that's expected or not

Reply via email to