https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68880
--- Comment #6 from Jonathan Wakely ---
I see, sorry, I read "The output below is from gcc 5.3.0, but I just checked
that it is still broken in SVN trunk" to mean it was ok in 4.9
Then it should have been "[4.9/5/6 Regression]" (and all regressi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68880
--- Comment #5 from David Ward ---
Jonathan, the behavior changed between 4.8 and 4.9. Testing with the 4.9
release showed the new behavior as well. I showed the output from the latest
release to demonstrate that the behavior still exists and had
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68880
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely ---
For future reference, [4.9 Regression] means a regression in gcc 4.9 compared
to previous versions. What you meant is [5/6 Regression], and you should have
put 4.9.4 (or another version) in the "Known to wo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68880
David Ward changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|CLOSED
--- Comment #3 from David Ward ---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68880
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68880
--- Comment #1 from François Dumont ---
Not sure it is a regression. Of course before the patch the operator was called
in namespace std so your operator was considered. Now we are using intermediate
functor that are not in std namespace so your
