https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94890
--- Comment #7 from Ville Voutilainen ---
..and as expected, std::optional is broken the same way.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94890
--- Comment #8 from Ville Voutilainen ---
(In reply to Marek Polacek from comment #6)
> Thanks Ville. What I should have said...
>
> (In reply to Marek Polacek from comment #4)
> > My current theory is that it is not a bug.
>
> ...in the compi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94890
--- Comment #6 from Marek Polacek ---
Thanks Ville. What I should have said...
(In reply to Marek Polacek from comment #4)
> My current theory is that it is not a bug.
...in the compiler proper. It'd be nice if the original test compiled.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94890
Ville Voutilainen changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |ville.voutilainen at
gmail do
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94890
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94890
--- Comment #3 from Patrick Palka ---
Whoops, the above minimal testcase doesn't actually illustrate any bug, we just
correctly accept it in c++2a mode ever since r10-6519. Hmm...
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94890
--- Comment #2 from Patrick Palka ---
Minimal testcase:
template
void foo();
struct t { int a; };
void bar()
{
foo();
}
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94890
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|libstdc++ |c++
--- Comment #1 from Patrick Palka -
