https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102283
--- Comment #7 from Patrick Palka ---
(In reply to Fedor Chelnokov from comment #0 in PR102691)
> This code is valid:
> ```
> struct Foo {};
> struct Bar {};
>
> constexpr int Baz(const Foo&) { return 0; }
> constexpr int Baz(Bar&&) { return 1;
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102283
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||fchelnokov at gmail dot com
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102283
--- Comment #5 from Giuseppe D'Angelo ---
(Sorry for the delay)
Thank you for the analysis. I'm now not really sure if GCC is doing something
wrong (vs Clang/MSVC). Feel free to close/suspend this task if you strongly
believe GCC is right here.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102283
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jason at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102283
--- Comment #3 from Patrick Palka ---
(In reply to Giuseppe D'Angelo from comment #2)
> Hi,
>
> Do you think that in my original testcase the call should be rejected as
> ambiguous as well? (It seems "reasonable" to me, but maybe I'm missing so
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102283
--- Comment #2 from Giuseppe D'Angelo ---
Hi,
Do you think that in my original testcase the call should be rejected as
ambiguous as well? (It seems "reasonable" to me, but maybe I'm missing some
niche detail about overload resolution when combi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102283
Patrick Palka changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ppalka at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #
