[Bug c++/90019] [8 regression] Bogus ambiguous overload error for NTTP pack of disjoint enable_ifs unless there is an unsupplied default argument
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90019 --- Comment #4 from CVS Commits --- The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:d25809dbfe43917b3bed9454620fcc24f04c1e03 commit r12-799-gd25809dbfe43917b3bed9454620fcc24f04c1e03 Author: Jakub Jelinek Date: Fri May 14 14:56:28 2021 +0200 testsuite: Add testcase for already fixed PR [PR90019] 2021-05-14 Jakub Jelinek PR c++/90019 * g++.dg/cpp0x/sfinae68.C: New test.
[Bug c++/90019] [8 regression] Bogus ambiguous overload error for NTTP pack of disjoint enable_ifs unless there is an unsupplied default argument
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90019 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org Status|NEW |RESOLVED --- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek --- Started with r8-544-g0ea37ae178ba156ec9f88134acc4bb13665c56ef Fixed for 9.1 with r9-6728-gce4609958f8db5cd64ec1c3bec624a36d8b35812 Therefore, dup of PR86932. *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 86932 ***
[Bug c++/90019] [8 regression] Bogus ambiguous overload error for NTTP pack of disjoint enable_ifs unless there is an unsupplied default argument
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90019 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|8.4 |8.5 --- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek --- GCC 8.4.0 has been released, adjusting target milestone.
[Bug c++/90019] [8 regression] Bogus ambiguous overload error for NTTP pack of disjoint enable_ifs unless there is an unsupplied default argument
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90019 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Priority|P3 |P2 Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Known to work||7.4.0, 9.0 Version|9.0 |8.3.0 Keywords||rejects-valid Last reconfirmed||2019-04-09 Ever confirmed|0 |1 Target Milestone|--- |8.4 Known to fail||8.1.0, 8.3.0 --- Comment #1 from Richard Biener --- Also seems to work on trunk, but it seems it was only fixed recently. So maybe this one has a duplicate.