https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84918
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|9.5 |---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84918
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|9.4 |9.5
--- Comment #7 from Richard Biener
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84918
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|9.3 |9.4
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84918
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|9.2 |9.3
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84918
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|9.0 |9.2
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84918
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84918
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #1)
> I'd much rather see a solution to the more general problem of drowning the
> user in information when the overload set is very large.
Which is now PR 84920
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84918
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely ---
This seems pretty low priority though, there's a lot of output, but all of it
tells you the problem:
42.cc:4:18: note: ‘std::ostream {aka std::basic_ostream}’ is not
derived from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84918
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |dmalcolm at gcc dot
gnu.org
