--- Comment #5 from marc dot glisse at normalesup dot org 2008-11-12 16:19
---
This is not a bug (see previous comments).
--
marc dot glisse at normalesup dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
---
--- Comment #4 from marc dot glisse at normalesup dot org 2008-08-10 14:20
---
This looks really close to the exemple explained here (near the end):
http://www.gotw.ca/publications/mill17.htm
except that there is no <> or <...> after the name of the function in the
specialization (gues
--- Comment #3 from marc dot glisse at normalesup dot org 2008-08-10 10:50
---
Hmm apparently partial specialization of function does not exist. Depending on
the order, the full specialization is considered either as a specialization of
the first declaration or of the HELLO2 one. Now th
--- Comment #2 from marc dot glisse at normalesup dot org 2008-08-10 09:42
---
(In reply to comment #1)
> Hmm, the one that says HELLO1 is fully specialization and not a partial one.
Indeed, sorry for the wrong vocabulary. So the title should be something like:
partial specialization o
--- Comment #1 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-08-10 07:31 ---
Hmm, the one that says HELLO1 is fully specialization and not a partial one.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37066
