https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40942
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.8.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40942
--- Comment #9 from Dodji Seketeli dodji at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-04-02
08:51:30 UTC ---
Author: dodji
Date: Mon Apr 2 08:51:26 2012
New Revision: 186067
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=186067
Log:
PR c++/40942 - Failure of
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40942
Dodji Seketeli dodji at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40942
--- Comment #8 from dodji at seketeli dot org dodji at seketeli dot org
2012-03-31 17:02:48 UTC ---
A candidate fix was posted to
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2012-03/msg01993.html for review.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40942
Dodji Seketeli dodji at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40942
Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40942
Václav Zeman vhaisman at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Version|4.4.1 |4.7.0
---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40942
Manuel López-Ibáñez manu at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||manu at gcc
--- Comment #2 from bangerth at gmail dot com 2009-08-25 13:24 ---
Why would this be ambiguous? A string literal has type array of n const char
(see 2.13.4/1), so it should go with the array constructor. Do you disagree?
W.
--
bangerth at gmail dot com changed:
What
--- Comment #3 from v dot haisman at sh dot cvut dot cz 2009-08-25 14:20
---
(In reply to comment #2)
Why would this be ambiguous? A string literal has type array of n const char
(see 2.13.4/1), so it should go with the array constructor. Do you disagree?
W.
IANALL, but I think
--- Comment #4 from tom at kera dot name 2009-08-25 14:48 ---
(In reply to comment #2)
Why would this be ambiguous? A string literal has type array of n const char
(see 2.13.4/1), so it should go with the array constructor. Do you disagree?
W.
Table 9 under 13.3.3/1 shows that
--- Comment #1 from jwakely dot gcc at gmail dot com 2009-08-04 12:48
---
Testcase can be reduced to:
struct S
{
template typename T
S (T const *)
{ }
template size_t N
S (char const ()[N])
{ }
};
int
main()
{
S s1 (test);
}
GCC still accepts this while Comeau rejects
12 matches
Mail list logo
