On 07/26/2014 12:11 PM, Jason Merrill wrote:
On 07/26/2014 03:04 AM, Braden Obrzut wrote:
On 07/25/2014 05:24 PM, Jason Merrill wrote:
Fair enough, but in that case let's use 'sorry' rather then 'error' to
be clear that it's a missing feature.
Tests like g++.dg/cpp1y/pr59638.C produce extra failures if this is
changed. Is there something I'm supposed to do to account for that?
Changing dg-error to dg-message should cover it.
Actually, we shouldn't be treating that testcase as declaring variable
templates at all. Adam, any thoughts?
Jason
