http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54388
--- Comment #5 from Jonathan Wakely 2012-08-28
13:55:36 UTC ---
The paper does have implementation experience, and experience shows we got it
wrong ;)
We could do:
return __n < _Nm ? _M_instance[__n]
: (std::__throw out_of_range(__N(
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54388
--- Comment #4 from Daniel Krügler
2012-08-28 13:53:18 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #3)
> (In reply to comment #2)
> > The fix is to remove the constexpr from array::at, which isn't required by
> > the
> > standard anyway:
>
> It's not required
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54388
--- Comment #3 from Daniel Krügler
2012-08-28 13:43:42 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #2)
> The fix is to remove the constexpr from array::at, which isn't required by the
> standard anyway:
It's not required, but I would like to encourage you to k
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54388
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely 2012-08-28
08:21:21 UTC ---
The fix is to remove the constexpr from array::at, which isn't required by the
standard anyway:
diff --git a/libstdc++-v3/include/std/array b/libstdc++-v3/include/std/array
index 58
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54388
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
