Hi,
On 07/09/2015 10:53 PM, Jason Merrill wrote:
On 07/09/2015 03:36 PM, Paolo Carlini wrote:
Finally, we do *not* reject, as we should, the line:
template<> enum A::E : char { echar };
Then, overall, is it Ok to simply suppress the pedwarn in C++11, and
xfail for now the error? Should I open
On 07/09/2015 03:36 PM, Paolo Carlini wrote:
Finally, we do *not* reject, as we should, the line:
template<> enum A::E : char { echar };
Then, overall, is it Ok to simply suppress the pedwarn in C++11, and
xfail for now the error? Should I open a new, separate bug report about
the latter? (note
Hi,
On 07/09/2015 06:33 PM, Jason Merrill wrote:
On 07/09/2015 12:09 PM, Paolo Carlini wrote:
the DR got resolved in time for C++11 and Jonathan noticed that we
should remove the pedwarn, not a big deal. Tested x86_64-linux.
How about adding the testcase from the DR as well? OK with that cha
On 07/09/2015 12:09 PM, Paolo Carlini wrote:
the DR got resolved in time for C++11 and Jonathan noticed that we
should remove the pedwarn, not a big deal. Tested x86_64-linux.
How about adding the testcase from the DR as well? OK with that change.
Jason
Hi,
the DR got resolved in time for C++11 and Jonathan noticed that we
should remove the pedwarn, not a big deal. Tested x86_64-linux.
Thanks,
Paolo.
//
/cp
2015-07-09 Paolo Carlini
PR c++/61491
* pt.c (maybe_process_partial_specialization): Allow enum temp
