https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92236
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92236
--- Comment #7 from asutton at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: asutton
Date: Wed Nov 27 15:23:02 2019
New Revision: 278775
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=278775&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2019-11-27 Andrew Sutton
PR c++/92236
De
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92236
--- Comment #6 from Andrew Sutton ---
I'm going to send a patch for this, hopefully this morning, that ties concept
diagnostics into static asserts. It wasn't as bad as I thought it was going to
be.
I didn't implement this:
static_assert (!In
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92236
--- Comment #5 from Jason Merrill ---
Created attachment 47153
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=47153&action=edit
sketch of late evaulation
something like this. not continuing to work on it.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92236
--- Comment #4 from Jason Merrill ---
(In reply to Andrew Sutton from comment #2)
> This is tricky because the condition reduces to true/false before the static
> assertion evaluates it. We could introduce a new binary expression that
> stores th
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92236
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Another idea would be to add a new flag which chooses between brief and verbose
explanations of satisfaction failure during overload resolution. By default
just say that an overload isn't viable because typ
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92236
Andrew Sutton changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||andrew.n.sutton at gmail dot
com
--- Co
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92236
--- Comment #1 from Jason Merrill ---
It would also be helpful to explain for
static_assert (!Int);
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92236
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
