[Bug c++/41958] [c++0x] bogus variadic partial ordering code

2019-03-17 Thread stinkingmadgod at gmail dot com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41958 stinkingmadgod at gmail dot com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||stinkingmadgod at gmail

[Bug c++/41958] [c++0x] bogus variadic partial ordering code

2018-11-06 Thread frankhb1989 at gmail dot com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41958 frankhb1989 at gmail dot com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||frankhb1989 at gmail dot co

[Bug c++/41958] [c++0x] bogus variadic partial ordering code

2012-11-19 Thread jason at gcc dot gnu.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41958 --- Comment #9 from Jason Merrill 2012-11-19 13:42:06 UTC --- (In reply to comment #8) > The note describing the resolution of 1395 says "preferring an omitted > parameter over a parameter pack". "omitted parameter" here means no parame

[Bug c++/41958] [c++0x] bogus variadic partial ordering code

2012-11-18 Thread zeratul976 at hotmail dot com
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41958 --- Comment #8 from Nathan Ridge 2012-11-19 03:49:39 UTC --- (In reply to comment #6) > No. The resolution of 1395 will not make the testcase in #1 valid, only the > case where you have a degenerate overload, like > > template > int&

[Bug c++/41958] [c++0x] bogus variadic partial ordering code

2012-11-18 Thread paolo.carlini at oracle dot com
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41958 --- Comment #7 from Paolo Carlini 2012-11-19 02:11:53 UTC --- I see...

[Bug c++/41958] [c++0x] bogus variadic partial ordering code

2012-11-18 Thread jason at gcc dot gnu.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41958 --- Comment #6 from Jason Merrill 2012-11-19 01:57:16 UTC --- No. The resolution of 1395 will not make the testcase in #1 valid, only the case where you have a degenerate overload, like template int& f(const T&, Args...); template

[Bug c++/41958] [c++0x] bogus variadic partial ordering code

2012-11-18 Thread paolo.carlini at oracle dot com
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41958 --- Comment #5 from Paolo Carlini 2012-11-19 00:21:29 UTC --- Oh yes, nice. I'm only a bit nervous because the status is still drafting but it looks like there is very solid agreement about the issue. Tomorrow I mean to add the testcase to

[Bug c++/41958] [c++0x] bogus variadic partial ordering code

2012-11-18 Thread zeratul976 at hotmail dot com
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41958 --- Comment #4 from Nathan Ridge 2012-11-18 22:28:59 UTC --- I filed the same bug for clang, and I was pointed to DR1395 [1]. GCC and clang's behaviour are both in line with the resolution of this DR. I guess this can be closed as invali

[Bug c++/41958] [c++0x] bogus variadic partial ordering code

2012-11-18 Thread paolo.carlini at oracle dot com
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41958 Paolo Carlini changed: What|Removed |Added CC||zeratul976 at hotmail dot

[Bug c++/41958] [c++0x] bogus variadic partial ordering code

2012-07-05 Thread redi at gcc dot gnu.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41958 Jonathan Wakely changed: What|Removed |Added Last reconfirmed|2009-11-05 22:41:18 |2012-07-05 CC|

[Bug c++/41958] [c++0x] bogus variadic partial ordering code

2009-11-05 Thread jason at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #1 from jason at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-11-05 22:41 --- That is, I think this should be ambiguous since the WP says that unused default args aren't considered in partial ordering (14.6.6.2): template int& f(const T&, Args...); template float& f(const T&, double d = 2); f