https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71771
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71771
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71771
--- Comment #8 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Author: redi
Date: Tue Aug 23 10:13:26 2016
New Revision: 239691
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=239691&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Implement resolution of LWG DR 685 precisely
PR libstdc++/71771
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71771
--- Comment #7 from Casey Carter ---
That seems like a good compromise solution to avoid breaking both old code and
new.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71771
--- Comment #6 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Casey Carter from comment #5)
> If you think that defending against unconstrained templates is important,
> then we should open a library issue to standardize that behavior. From my
> experienc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71771
Casey Carter changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||Casey at Carter dot net
--- Comment #5 fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71771
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely ---
This fails without the single-type overloads:
#include
namespace greedy {
struct X { };
template X operator-(T, T) { return {}; }
}
int main()
{
std::move_iterator m{nullptr};
m - m;
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71771
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely ---
But we do have greedy_ops::operator- defined in
testsuite/util/testsuite_greedy_ops.h ... drat.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71771
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely ---
But as there's no rel_ops::operator- we shouldn't need to do that for operator-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71771
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
10 matches
Mail list logo
