https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97198
--- Comment #8 from Zhihao Yuan ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #7)
> (In reply to Zhihao Yuan from comment #5)
> > Encountered this today. In case I cannot show up when discussing LWG3486, my
> > use case is that C(in_place_type,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97198
--- Comment #7 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Zhihao Yuan from comment #5)
> Encountered this today. In case I cannot show up when discussing LWG3486, my
> use case is that C(in_place_type, a, b, c) should "just works." It's up
> to C how
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97198
--- Comment #6 from Jonathan Wakely ---
I'll add a note to the lwg issue, as I'll never remember there was a comment
about it here.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97198
Zhihao Yuan changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||lichray at gmail dot com
--- Comment #5
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97198
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely ---
This is now https://wg21.link/lwg3486
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97198
--- Comment #3 from Marek Polacek ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #2)
> Hmm. It should be false for construction from no arguments i.e.
> __is_constructible(int[]).
>
> But thanks to parenthesized aggregate init, you can actually
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97198
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Hmm. It should be false for construction from no arguments i.e.
__is_constructible(int[]).
But thanks to parenthesized aggregate init, you can actually do:
using T = int[];
T t(1);
It's still true
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97198
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||redi at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97198
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97198
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2020-09-25
Ever confirmed|0
10 matches
Mail list logo