https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82193
--- Comment #6 from Andrew Pinski ---
Just a quick note p1787
(https://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2020/p1787r6.html) moves
around the place where it says no diagnostic is required but the effect is the
same.
it is now in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82193
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mserdarsanli at gmail dot com
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82193
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82193
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Marc Mutz from comment #2)
> Basically: because the other two compilers compile it.
Again so ...
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82193
--- Comment #2 from Marc Mutz ---
Basically: because the other two compilers compile it.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82193
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
Why do you think this is a bug in GCC?
The "changes meaning of" is a diagnostic which is not required by C++. That is
the C++ language says this is invalid code but a diagnostic is not required.