https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90799
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90799
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |mpolacek at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90799
--- Comment #4 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Marek Polacek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:a210d404d08e363af4b2e2a60986c3cb08f8ebc5
commit r11-4890-ga210d404d08e363af4b2e2a60986c3cb08f8ebc5
Author: Marek Polacek
Date: Tu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90799
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Yes, that's standard as long as you provide the bool as an explicit template
argument. Deducing it from the function type is the GCC extension.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90799
--- Comment #2 from franwade33 at googlemail dot com ---
It throws a different compiler error if you give the template parameter (Move
`bool is_noexcept` to the start of the template list and call
`is_noexcept_function(foo)`). To my knowledge, thi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90799
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-valid-code
Status|U
