https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108364
Bug ID: 108364
Summary: Construction from prvalue erroneously uses
move-constructor
Product: gcc
Version: 12.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108588
--- Comment #1 from Fedor Chelnokov ---
According to this StackOverflow answer, the behavior of GCC is incorrect here:
https://stackoverflow.com/a/75380301/7325599
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104000
--- Comment #5 from Fedor Chelnokov ---
Based on stackoverflow answer, a modified example was found with the delegation
to consteval constructor:
```
struct A {
int i = 0;
consteval A() = default;
A(const A&) = delete;
A(i
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104661
Bug ID: 104661
Summary: Catching exception by const value when
exception-object has lvalue-reference constructor
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88165
--- Comment #11 from Fedor Chelnokov ---
Thanks a lot for the explanation!
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105350
Bug ID: 105350
Summary: False constructor warning in case of [[depreacated]]
field in class
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105407
Bug ID: 105407
Summary: std::construct_at during constant evaluation does not
zero-initialize
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106599
Bug ID: 106599
Summary: Wrong copy elision in delegating to copy-constructor
Product: gcc
Version: 12.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Comp
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106695
Bug ID: 106695
Summary: Regression 11,12: Explicit copy constructor does not
work for a parameter passed via std::async
Product: gcc
Version: 12.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106599
--- Comment #4 from Fedor Chelnokov ---
And if one deletes copy constructor of A:
struct A {
constexpr A() = default;
constexpr A(const A&) = delete;
constexpr A(int) : A(A()) {}
};
A a(2);
Then Clang rejects the program, b
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106968
Bug ID: 106968
Summary: ignored noexcept(false) in explicitly-defaulted
functions
Product: gcc
Version: 12.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
P
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107124
Bug ID: 107124
Summary: Reference template parameter refers to a temporary
object
Product: gcc
Version: 12.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
P
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101670
--- Comment #3 from Fedor Chelnokov ---
A shorter example:
template concept x = true;
void foo(x auto) {}
Online demo: https://godbolt.org/z/sT74G8crE
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107168
Bug ID: 107168
Summary: Wrong errors for concepts with default lambda not-type
argument
Product: gcc
Version: 12.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103807
Bug ID: 103807
Summary: Unable to make template class instance with default
parameter of lambda::function
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103833
Bug ID: 103833
Summary: Overloaded static member function cannot be resolved
unlike overloaded global function
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
S
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103849
Bug ID: 103849
Summary: std::hash specializations with distinct concepts fails
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Comp
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103852
Bug ID: 103852
Summary: Alias template argument deduction is available in
C++17 mode
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103865
Bug ID: 103865
Summary: virtual function can have a requires clause
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103878
Bug ID: 103878
Summary: ThreadSanitizer: false report about data race
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c+
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103884
Bug ID: 103884
Summary: ICE when calling static and non-static member function
templates with the same parameter types and requires
clause
Product: gcc
Version:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103878
--- Comment #3 from Fedor Chelnokov ---
Bugreport for Clang/LLVM: https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/issues/52942
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103783
Fedor Chelnokov changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||fchelnokov at gmail dot com
--- Comme
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103896
Bug ID: 103896
Summary: Label as value: object destructor is not called
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103901
Bug ID: 103901
Summary: A lambda with a new type in its body cannot be defined
inside template parameter list
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Se
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103913
Bug ID: 103913
Summary: Several variables declared in one declarator have
distinct types
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103927
Bug ID: 103927
Summary: ICE in a recursive class template
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103929
Bug ID: 103929
Summary: False warning: no return statement in function
returning non-void
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103953
Bug ID: 103953
Summary: Leak of coroutine return object
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
As
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103963
Bug ID: 103963
Summary: Coroutine return type must not be copy- or
move-constructible
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104000
Bug ID: 104000
Summary: Ordinary constructor cannot delegate to `consteval`
constructor
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88165
--- Comment #7 from Fedor Chelnokov ---
This struct definition:
```
struct A {
struct B {
int i = 0;
B() {}
};
A(B = {});
};
```
is accepted by GCC, but another one ({} replaced with = default) is not:
```
struct C {
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104043
Bug ID: 104043
Summary: Non-type template specialization with another type is
accepted but ignored
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: nor
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104055
Bug ID: 104055
Summary: Temporary with conteval constructor is ignored
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104087
Bug ID: 104087
Summary: Invoking a consteval constructor with new
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104111
Bug ID: 104111
Summary: Concept evaluation depends on context where it was
first checked
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104111
--- Comment #1 from Fedor Chelnokov ---
Sorry, related discussion: https://stackoverflow.com/q/53263299/7325599
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104141
Bug ID: 104141
Summary: Access to private member function from requires-clause
accepted
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104141
--- Comment #4 from Fedor Chelnokov ---
In
```
template concept t = requires{ A::f(); };
```
A::f() does not depend on template parameter, so the rules here are somewhat
different than in T::f(). A possible answer:
https://stackoverflow.com/a/
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104141
--- Comment #6 from Fedor Chelnokov ---
I agree that Clang behavior here might be wrong. Submitted
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/issues/53334
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104000
--- Comment #4 from Fedor Chelnokov ---
If we take MSVC into consideration, then it rejects
```
struct A {
consteval A() = default;
A(int) : A() {}
};
```
which GCC accepts. So there is a divergence with MSVC as
well.https://gcc.g
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104192
Bug ID: 104192
Summary: Uninitialized object read is not detected in a
constant expression
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104193
Bug ID: 104193
Summary: Valid function template instantiation rejected
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104204
Bug ID: 104204
Summary: Ambiguity error for out of class definition of member
function template in the presence of a member function
of the same name
Product: gcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104204
--- Comment #2 from Fedor Chelnokov ---
Are you sure that this is a duplicate? Bug 39270 is about explicit
instantiation that is erroneously reported by GCC as specialization. And this
bug is about rejection of real explicit specialization in sp
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104242
Bug ID: 104242
Summary: Class with constructor from std::any is not copyable
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Compon
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104242
--- Comment #1 from Fedor Chelnokov ---
The error message is
invalid use of incomplete type 'std::__conditional_t, std::__not_
> >' {aka 'struct std::is_copy_constructible'}
...
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104266
Bug ID: 104266
Summary: Temporaries with protected destructor are erroneously
permitted
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104282
Bug ID: 104282
Summary: Copy elision when initializing a base-class subobject
with aggregate initialization
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Seve
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88417
Fedor Chelnokov changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||fchelnokov at gmail dot com
--- Commen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104282
--- Comment #3 from Fedor Chelnokov ---
Both Clang and GCC do not change their output either with `-std=c++20` or with
`-std=c++17` options. And both reject the program with -std=c++14`.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104266
--- Comment #4 from Fedor Chelnokov ---
In your last example, I think Clang is right, because `Y` is not an aggregate
in C++11 due to the presence of default member initializer. And it becomes an
aggregate only in C++14.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92770
Fedor Chelnokov changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||fchelnokov at gmail dot com
--- Commen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104305
Bug ID: 104305
Summary: Partial specialization with parameter pack is ignored
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Compo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104383
Bug ID: 104383
Summary: User-defined conversion is preferred over standard-one
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Comp
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83264
--- Comment #9 from Fedor Chelnokov ---
There is a related discussion: https://stackoverflow.com/a/47618530/7325599
And it is noted there that according to [over.ics.rank]/2 just before
[over.ics.rank]/3:
— a standard conversion sequence is a be
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104418
Bug ID: 104418
Summary: Error inheriting base class constructors by
using-declaration
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104418
--- Comment #2 from Fedor Chelnokov ---
My personal feeling is that if a compiler accepts `B b(i);` then it must accept
`C c(i);` as well because of [namespace.udecl] p13:
> Constructors that are named by a using-declaration are treated as thou
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104418
--- Comment #4 from Fedor Chelnokov ---
I think `using B::B;` is not the same as redefining each constructor with the
explicit call of base class constructor `C(int a) : B{(int)a}{}`.
Please consider this example proving it:
```
struct A {
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104418
--- Comment #7 from Fedor Chelnokov ---
Thanks. I submitted Clang bug:
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/issues/53653
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104490
Bug ID: 104490
Summary: Cannot inherit consteval constructor
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104512
Bug ID: 104512
Summary: [c++20] consteval constructor does not need to
initialize all data members
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: nor
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103092
Bug ID: 103092
Summary: Non-throwing function pointer can point to a
throwing-function in C++14
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103110
Bug ID: 103110
Summary: templated operator auto is ignored
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103110
--- Comment #2 from Fedor Chelnokov ---
I think the program must be equivalent to
```
struct S {
operator auto() const { return 2; }
};
int main() {
S s;
[[maybe_unused]] int d = s;
}
```
and `auto` here is deduced from `return 2` a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103110
--- Comment #4 from Fedor Chelnokov ---
Actually you changed the example, and if T is void, then T{} is ill-formed. But
I do not see how it relates to the original program.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103110
--- Comment #6 from Fedor Chelnokov ---
Thanks for the explanation! I reported Clang bug:
https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=52434
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103347
Bug ID: 103347
Summary: Non-static data member initialization is erroneously
allowed in C++03 mode
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: nor
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85428
Fedor Chelnokov changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||fchelnokov at gmail dot com
--- Commen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103402
Bug ID: 103402
Summary: Compile-time less/more comparison of a pointer vs
nullptr
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Pri
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103426
Bug ID: 103426
Summary: Acceptance of invalid template specialization in a
namespace not enclosing the specialized template
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRME
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103478
Bug ID: 103478
Summary: Possible regression in constexpr processing
Product: gcc
Version: 10.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c+
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103552
Bug ID: 103552
Summary: Compile-time comparison of subobject and parent class
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Compo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103555
Bug ID: 103555
Summary: out-of-line definition of class template method fails
in the presence of type named the same as template
argument
Product: gcc
Version: 1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103659
Bug ID: 103659
Summary: Declared function template can be deleted later
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103689
Bug ID: 103689
Summary: Overriding spaceship operator when parent class does
not define spaceship operator for itself
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102097
Bug ID: 102097
Summary: Error in selecting more specialized function in case
of ambiguity
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102116
Bug ID: 102116
Summary: structured binding is returned from a function as
rvalue in C++20 mode
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102156
Bug ID: 102156
Summary: `cannot call constructor` error during member access
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Compon
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102170
Bug ID: 102170
Summary: False accept of class member access using qualified-id
in case of ambiguity
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: no
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102116
--- Comment #1 from Fedor Chelnokov ---
Sorry, what do you mean by "wrong-code" tag? The code example is for sure
valid. It may be only unclear which one of two A-constructors must be called.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102116
--- Comment #3 from Fedor Chelnokov ---
Thanks a lot, it is clear now.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102175
Bug ID: 102175
Summary: Error comparing the pointers on static class fields in
static_assert
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102184
Bug ID: 102184
Summary: Explicit template instantiation is wrongly considered
as specialization
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102194
Bug ID: 102194
Summary: Incorrect explicit instantiation of constexpr variable
accepted
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102208
Bug ID: 102208
Summary: Acceptance of invalid decltype(auto) in the default
operator <=>
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102213
Bug ID: 102213
Summary: Incorrect executable produced from valid input code
with virtual consteval
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: nor
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102251
Bug ID: 102251
Summary: Valid code is rejected in ternary operator with unique
conversion
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102367
Bug ID: 102367
Summary: Types may be defined in `decltype` or `sizeof`
expressions in C++20
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102407
Bug ID: 102407
Summary: Ambiguity is not reported in case of separate
inheritance of `<` and `<=>` operators
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Sev
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102423
Bug ID: 102423
Summary: False accept of virtual methods with deduced return
type
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Prio
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102465
Bug ID: 102465
Summary: Inaccessible operator == breaks child class with
spaceship operator
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102465
--- Comment #2 from Fedor Chelnokov ---
I believe PR 97934 is not much related, since the code there is processed the
same by all compilers. And here GCC is the only one showing the error.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97934
Fedor Chelnokov changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||fchelnokov at gmail dot com
--- Commen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102468
Bug ID: 102468
Summary: False acceptance of invalid `using
Parent::Grandparent`
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Prior
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102551
Bug ID: 102551
Summary: Failing compile-time comparison of std::type_info
addresses
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
P
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102603
Bug ID: 102603
Summary: Compile-time evaluation of indirection via dangling
pointer is not rejected
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: no
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102635
Bug ID: 102635
Summary: Wrong rejection of function default argument value
depending on argument name
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101344
--- Comment #8 from Fedor Chelnokov ---
Thanks!
Related discussion: https://stackoverflow.com/q/67280884/7325599
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102660
Bug ID: 102660
Summary: Valid template default parameter of a friend function
is rejected
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
1 - 100 of 228 matches
Mail list logo
