https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80227
Eric Gallager <egallager at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed| |2017-08-17
CC| |egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
Ever confirmed|0 |1
--- Comment #1 from Eric Gallager <egallager at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
Redoing lost comments:
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-bugs/2017-08/msg01610.html
Eric Gallager <egallager at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed| |2017-08-14
CC| |egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
Ever confirmed|0 |1
--- Comment #1 from Eric Gallager <egallager at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
Confirmed that gcc rejects the former and accepts the latter, although the
former should probably still get a warning anyways even if it's not supposed to
error, just for being confusing (in my
biased-against-c++-things-like-overloading opinion)
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-bugs/2017-08/msg01626.html
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely <redi at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
Idiomatic C++ code should not warn.
Clang and ICC accept the former and reject the latter. VC++ rejects both, which
is odd.
