https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61732
--- Comment #4 from Joaquín M López Muñoz ---
I see. The following is slightly off-topic, so please tell me if you can carry
on the discussion offline. Why is such an instantiation error not
SFINAE-protected in the following example?
template st
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61732
--- Comment #2 from Joaquín M López Muñoz ---
Umm... This is not how I read [class]/3 (no mention to instances there). And,
moreover, if your interpretation was right then the following should compile
too:
struct X final{};
struct derived:X{};
: c++
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: joaquin at tid dot es
I understand that [class]/3 marks this program as ill-formed:
template struct derived:Base{};
struct X final{};
void foo(derived*){}
int main()
{
foo(0);
}
Yet it builds and runs fine in GCC 4.8.
: c++
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: joaquin at tid dot es
The following code compiled with -std=c++11:
struct foo
{
foo(int){}
};
struct bar
{
explicit bar(int){}
};
void f(foo){}
void f(bar){}
int main()
{
f({0});
}
yields:
main.cpp
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41975
--- Comment #31 from Joaquín M López Muñoz 2010-10-06
11:10:12 UTC ---
Paolo,
I've read the minutes and seems no strong consensus
was reached. I think it'd be useful if the issue can
be reopened, at least for informative purposes, so
that the co
--- Comment #28 from joaquin at tid dot es 2010-09-20 17:34 ---
> US 113, ES 2, US 118 / Issue 579 have been closed as NAD, thus
> let's figure out how best obtain O(1) in our implementation...
Do you have a rationale for the closing of this NB comments?
N3133 shows 579 u
--- Comment #11 from joaquin at tid dot es 2010-08-12 14:06 ---
> Thanks Manuel.
It's Joaquín :-) You're welcome.
> Agreed again. Now I begin to understand this issue ;) Anyway, the
> patch for our library is almost ready, already passes all my test.
> I'
--- Comment #9 from joaquin at tid dot es 2010-08-12 12:32 ---
Hi Paolo,
My comments on your last two posts:
I think the impact of this is independent of #579: even if erase
does not return an iterator, the cached bucket pointer has to
be synced. This happens for erase(const key_type
--- Comment #4 from joaquin at tid dot es 2010-07-01 06:56 ---
Hi Paolo, I sent a message to the reflector, answer was that
currently there's no DR or any other type of issue regarding
this that the LWG is aware of, so they have no official stance
on the matter :-/
I don't
--- Comment #2 from joaquin at tid dot es 2010-06-09 20:34 ---
Caching can also have undesired consequences: for additional context on the
problem, see
https://svn.boost.org/trac/boost/ticket/4264
Note that *two* problems are discussed there, one is LWG issue #579 and the
other the
Priority: P3
Component: libstdc++
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: joaquin at tid dot es
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44480
emplate
functions are involved
Product: gcc
Version: 3.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: joaquin at tid dot es
--- Additional Comments From joaquin at tid dot es 2005-03-14 17:08 ---
(In reply to comment #4)
> (In reply to comment #3)
> > (In reply to comment #2)
> > > I cannot reproduce it either with an obvious change to fix the missing
> >
> > Too bad. Sorry
--- Additional Comments From joaquin at tid dot es 2005-03-13 15:05 ---
(In reply to comment #2)
> I cannot reproduce it either with an obvious change to fix the missing
Too bad. Sorry for reporting this in such an imprecise
manner. The actual problem shows at Boost regression te
: 4.0.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P2
Component: c++
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: joaquin at tid dot es
CC: gcc-bugs at gcc dot gnu dot org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20453
15 matches
Mail list logo
