https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53025
--- Comment #9 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Nathaniel Shead :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:4719b6f5ae4d758f193a17bbd5fb6cbacd702a23
commit r14-6395-g4719b6f5ae4d758f193a17bbd5fb6cbacd702a23
Author: Nathaniel Shead
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53025
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53025
--- Comment #7 from paolo at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: paolo
Date: Thu Oct 2 18:05:55 2014
New Revision: 215813
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=215813&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
/cp
2014-10-02 Paolo Carlini
PR c++/53025
* cp-tree
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53025
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jason at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #6
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53025
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53025
--- Comment #4 from Marc Glisse ---
(In reply to Daniel Krügler from comment #3)
> IMO it is important to fix at, because otherwise
> it does have the potential to subtly change overload selection (if noexcept
> is used as part of sfinae) and othe
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53025
--- Comment #3 from Daniel Krügler ---
This is just a polite reminder for some response. I'm especially interested to
hear whether there exist any reasonable doubts on the validity of the arguments
brought forward. IMO it is important to fix at, b
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53025
--- Comment #2 from Marc Glisse 2012-04-21
07:45:57 UTC ---
Created attachment 27210
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=27210
patch
Bootstrapped and regression tested.
Not posting it to gcc-patches yet, for several reasons:
- I
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53025
Marc Glisse changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||marc.glisse at normalesup
