在 12/15/15 11:09, Andrew Pinski 写道:
On Mon, Dec 14, 2015 at 7:01 PM, Carl Lei wrote:
Hello list,
The following code is rejected by GCC but accepted by Clang:
template
auto f(T v) -> decltype(g(v));
int g(int) { return 0; }
template
auto f(T v) -> decltype(g(v))
{
return g(v) + 1;
}
in
On Mon, Dec 14, 2015 at 7:01 PM, Carl Lei wrote:
> Hello list,
>
> The following code is rejected by GCC but accepted by Clang:
>
> template
> auto f(T v) -> decltype(g(v));
>
> int g(int) { return 0; }
>
> template
> auto f(T v) -> decltype(g(v))
> {
> return g(v) + 1;
> }
>
> int main()
> {
Hello list,
The following code is rejected by GCC but accepted by Clang:
template
auto f(T v) -> decltype(g(v));
int g(int) { return 0; }
template
auto f(T v) -> decltype(g(v))
{
return g(v) + 1;
}
int main()
{
return f(0);
}
Error message at http://ideone.com/Vn79Hm.
Basically the pr
To whom it may concern:
My name is Brett Searles and I am the Vice President of the local user group,
The Northwest C++ Users Group. Even though we are closely affiliated with
Microsoft, since we have our meetings there, we are also interested in
educating the community about other C++ Compil
On 13/12/15 06:15, David Wohlferd wrote:
>
> However breakage and performance issues can still result solely from
> adding memory clobbers.
Breakage? Really?
> And as I mentioned, "just memory clobber" may
> not be the behavior people expect. And if we aren't solving that, might
> there be
On Sun, Dec 13, 2015 at 10:59:11PM -0800, David Wohlferd wrote:
> Is there a decision maker still teetering on the edge of making a call
> here?
I think people are waiting for consensus, and we won't get consensus
until there is a good solution, something that gives workable semantics
(whatever t
