https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89741
--- Comment #12 from CVS Commits ---
The trunk branch has been updated by Jason Merrill :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:9944ca17c0766623bce260684edc614def7ea761
commit r13-6133-g9944ca17c0766623bce260684edc614def7ea761
Author: Jason Merrill
Date: Fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89741
--- Comment #11 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Tadeus Prastowo from comment #7)
> The code in question, which is simplified below to match the real use-case,
> does not involve template specialization, and so, the quoted passage does
> not
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89741
--- Comment #10 from Tadeus Prastowo ---
Okay, I see it now. Thank you very much, Jakub, for your clear explanation.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89741
--- Comment #9 from Jakub Jelinek ---
That is the C++11 wording, e.g. the C++17 wording is:
"a hypothetical instantiation of a template immediately following its
definition would be ill-formed due to a construct that does not depend on a
template
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89741
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|REOPENED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89741
Tadeus Prastowo changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
Resolution|INVALID
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89741
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89741
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek ---
This needs to be verified by our C++ language lawyers, but if:
"If no valid specialization can be generated for a template definition, and
that template is not instantiated, the template definition is ill-for
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89741
--- Comment #4 from Tadeus Prastowo ---
My use-case is to use the instantiation of `struct X' to fire the static
assert.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89741
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
This might actually be invalid testcase with no diagnostics required though.
Certainly no instantiations of X can be accepted.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89741
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek ---
It is the instantiation_dependent_r hunk in pt.c that breaks this:
@@ -25361,7 +25486,10 @@
return NULL_TREE;
case TEMPLATE_PARM_INDEX:
- return *tp;
+ if (dependent_type_p (TREE_TYPE (
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89741
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
12 matches
Mail list logo
