https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117849
Barry Revzin <barry.revzin at gmail dot com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |barry.revzin at gmail dot com
--- Comment #12 from Barry Revzin <barry.revzin at gmail dot com> ---
I'm not sure this is quite right yet. This is on gcc trunk on compiler explorer
right now, which is g++
(Compiler-Explorer-Build-gcc-8fbe7d24373556d40886c7c00e9e2be5d9718c55-binutils-2.42)
15.0.1 20250407 (experimental):
template <class T, int N>
struct Array {
constexpr int size() const { return N; }
};
struct A {
Array<int, 4> a;
void f() {
static_assert(a.size() == 4); // ok
}
};
struct B {
Array<int, 4>* p;
void f() {
static_assert(p->size() == 4); // error (expected)
}
};
struct C {
Array<int, 4>& r;
void f() {
static_assert(r.size() == 4); // error (unexpected?)
}
};
struct D {
Array<int, 4>& r;
void f() {
Array<int, 4>& local = r;
static_assert(local.size() == 4); // error (unexpected?)
}
};
The A case works as expected, and the B case fails as expected (we didn't add
pointers to unknown, just references to unknown). But the C and D cases both
fail, and I would have expected them to succeed.
