Mark Mitchell wrote:
> Josh Conner wrote:
>
>
>>I think this is consistent with my proposal -- the first example was
>>non-conforming, but accepted without -pedantic (as we do with other
>>zero-sized arrays). The second example was conforming and the only way
>>to alter its behavior was with the
Josh Conner wrote:
> I think this is consistent with my proposal -- the first example was
> non-conforming, but accepted without -pedantic (as we do with other
> zero-sized arrays). The second example was conforming and the only way
> to alter its behavior was with the -fpermissive option.
My po
Mark Mitchell wrote:
> I understand what you're after: tolerate uses of the extension where
> it's sufficiently harmless.
>
> I don't think your proposed solution is correct, though, because we want
> to maintain the invariant that all conforming programs compile and
> behave as required by the s
Josh Conner wrote:
> I've been investigating PR 19989, where we are rejecting code when a
> template instantiation generates a zero-sized array, such as:
>
> template struct A
> {
> static const int i = 0;
> }
>
> template struct B
> {
> int x[A::i];
> };
>
> B<0> b;
>
> T
I've been investigating PR 19989, where we are rejecting code when a
template instantiation generates a zero-sized array, such as:
template struct A
{
static const int i = 0;
}
template struct B
{
int x[A::i];
};
B<0> b;
This is rejected on the grounds that not failing cou
