https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107278
Jonathan changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|CLOSED
--- Comment #8 from Jonathan ---
Pro
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107278
--- Comment #7 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #6)
> Dup of bug 103593.
>
> CWG2237 is the defect report #.
>From that defect report:
```
(Note that this resolution is a change for C++20, NOT a defect report agai
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107278
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107278
--- Comment #5 from Jonathan ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #4)
> Clang might not implement the defect report after all ...
This is why I asked for a link to it so I could understand this issue at its
core; at any rate, thanks for
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107278
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski ---
Clang might not implement the defect report after all ...
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107278
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #1)
> Iirc there was a defect report against the c++ standard here and you should
> just foo instead of foo
kd5eax@KY4CT CLANG64 ~
$ cat test.cpp
template
class foo
{
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107278
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #1)
> Iirc there was a defect report against the c++ standard here and you should
> just foo instead of foo
kd5eax@KY4CT CLANG64 ~
$ cat test.cpp
template
class foo
{
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107278
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
Iirc there was a defect report against the c++ standard here and you should
just foo instead of foo
