http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52008
--- Comment #15 from Jonathan Wakely <redi at gcc dot gnu.org> 2012-11-07
00:08:48 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #14)
> GCC "rejects" it by doing ICE. I don't think this is the right thing that GCC
> should do.
No it doesn't it gives an error, see comment 4.
> My last proposal is: gcc should report error at the place where the wannabe
> specialization is defined (comment with "line 18") with something like: "18:
> This template specialization does not match the template parameters\n12: of
> this class template". I cannot check whether gcc currently fixed to do this,
> so
> I'm sorry if this is behind the current state.
t.cc:1:11: error: 'size_t' has not been declared
template <size_t B, typename Type1, typename... Types>
^
t.cc:8:8: error: partial specialization is not more specialized than the
primary template because it replaces multiple parameters with a pack expansion
struct tuple_sliced<0, Types...> // <-- line 18
^
t.cc:2:8: note: primary template here
struct tuple_sliced
^
t.cc:10:13: error: 'tuple' does not name a type
typedef tuple<Types...> type;
^
