Hi,
On 11/10/18 19:59, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Mon, Sep 24, 2018 at 12:48:56PM +0200, Paolo Carlini wrote:
as explained in the audit trail, the gcc_assert added by Nathan triggers
during error-recovery too, when add_method correctly returns false because
it failed to add the method. Thus it seems that we should simply loosen a
bit the assertion. Tested x86_64-linux.
Testcase fails with check-c++-all:
FAIL: g++.dg/cpp0x/pr85070.C -std=c++17 (test for excess errors)
FAIL: g++.dg/cpp0x/pr85070.C -std=c++2a (test for excess errors)
FAIL: g++.dg/cpp0x/pr85070.C -std=c++17 -fconcepts (test for excess errors)
Ah, sorry, it's because I tested with check-c++.
Any reason why you've used c++14_only effective target, rather than c++14?
If I use the latter, i.e. expect c++17/2a/17 + concepts to behave like c++14
in this case, there are no failures.
Not that I can remember now... I was working on some other issues too...
Paolo.
