--- Comment #6 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-10-13 19:23 ---
(In reply to comment #5)
> I think the relevant part of the C++ standard here is [temp.inst] paragraph 5:
So closing as invalid then.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed
--- Additional Comments From geoffk at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-09-15
22:20 ---
I think the relevant part of the C++ standard here is [temp.inst] paragraph 5:
If the overload resolution process can determine the correct function to call
without instantiating a class
template definitio
--- Additional Comments From janis at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-09-15 22:14
---
This changed with the following patch from geoffk:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-cvs/2005-06/msg00723.html
--
What|Removed |Added
---
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-09-02
16:38 ---
I should mention that comeau also rejects this and I would assume ICC does too.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23698
--- Additional Comments From bangerth at dealii dot org 2005-09-02 16:33
---
I think it can be considered arguable whether the code is valid or not.
Here it is again:
template struct X {
static const T value = false;
};
template struct W {};
template
--
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.1.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23698
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-09-02
15:44 ---
I should mention I found this while reducing PR 23691.
This has been failing since at least 4.1.0 20050808.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23698
