On Thu, Aug 8, 2013 at 6:40 PM, Jason Merrill <ja...@redhat.com> wrote: > On 08/08/2013 03:54 PM, Paolo Carlini wrote: >> >> the really interesting one is decltype28.C, which we don't reject >> anymore, we simply accept it. What is happening is that the overload >> which leads to excessive template instantiation depth is SFINAE-ed away >> and the other one "wins"! Thus, this is the core of my message: it seems >> that we behave wrt this issue - SFINAE vs template instantiation depth - >> in a different way vs current clang++ and icc: we produce hard error >> messages in SFINAE contexts. Is that intended? > > > Yes, that is intended. Changing that could mean that the meaning of code > depends on what max depth the user selected.
that would be disturbing… -- gaby
