https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94489
--- Comment #5 from Patrick Palka ---
If we change std::plus to std::plus{} in order to make the testcase
valid, then we accept ever since the PR94490 fix.
The comment #4 testcase can be further reduced to:
template struct A;
template A<__integ
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94489
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2020-04-06
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94489
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
Ke
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94489
--- Comment #3 from Marek Polacek ---
Likely still invalid, but it compiles without errors with the patch above.
template struct S { };
template using U = S;
template constexpr long g(T) { return 1l; }
template> struct X { };
template
auto f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94489
--- Comment #4 from Marek Polacek ---
(In reply to Marek Polacek from comment #2)
> Doesn't seem like valid code; clang++ trunk also rejects it:
> 94489.C:28:61: error: no matching constructor for initialization of
> 'std::plus'
>
> I think the
