http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56039
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56039
--- Comment #10 from Jason Merrill 2013-03-17
02:38:49 UTC ---
Author: jason
Date: Sun Mar 17 02:38:35 2013
New Revision: 196741
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=196741
Log:
PR c++/56039
* tree.c (strip_t
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56039
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|ice-on-valid-code |ice-on-invalid-code
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56039
--- Comment #8 from Hubert Tong 2013-01-20 17:50:50
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #7)
> That is, whether the "body" of the lambda expression is valid or not valid
> is not affected by unknowns such as what types it would be instantiated wit
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56039
--- Comment #7 from Hubert Tong 2013-01-20 16:45:13
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #6)
> I wonder why you think this would belong to the "immediate context". Actually
> it seems to me as if the instantiation of the body of a lambda expressio
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56039
--- Comment #6 from Daniel Krügler
2013-01-20 12:27:20 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #0)
> The code uses C++11 lambda expressions in a constant expression context for
> the SFINAE. As far as I can tell, SFINAE should apply since the lambda occurs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56039
--- Comment #5 from Daniel Krügler
2013-01-19 20:20:43 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #4)
> (In reply to comment #3)
> I seem to find that the expression in question
> >
> > false && [](){}
> >
> is valid because there is a implicit conversion s
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56039
--- Comment #4 from Hubert Tong 2013-01-19 20:10:59
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #3)
I seem to find that the expression in question
>
> false && [](){}
>
is valid because there is a implicit conversion sequence consisting of a
user-d
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56039
--- Comment #3 from Daniel Krügler
2013-01-19 17:20:21 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #2)
You make a good point, but my remaining argument would focus on the fact that
the expression
false && [](){}
is always invalid because it attempts to combi
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56039
--- Comment #2 from Hubert Tong 2013-01-19 16:38:31
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #1)
re: 5.19 p2 b8
5.19 p2 (before the referenced bullet list) reads:
..., but subexpressions of logical AND (5.14), logical OR (5.15) and
conditional (5.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56039
Daniel Krügler changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||daniel.kruegler at
|
11 matches
Mail list logo
