https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70767
Jonathan Wakely <redi at gcc dot gnu.org> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed| |2016-04-25 Component|c++ |libstdc++ Target Milestone|--- |7.0 Ever confirmed|0 |1 --- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely <redi at gcc dot gnu.org> --- (In reply to Marc Glisse from comment #1) > http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/lwg-defects.html#559 > It has status CD1, I don't remember if that means it applies retroactively > or not. LWG is less consistent than CWG about stating which issue resolutions are considered DRs, and so apply retroactively. The libstdc++ policy is to treat most of them as applying retroactively anyway, because that's the most useful approach. Although our current behaviour is correct according to C++98, I see no reason not to define the specializations for cv-qualified types in C++98.