This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [C++ Patch/RFC] PR 56450
- From: Jason Merrill <jason at redhat dot com>
- To: Paolo Carlini <paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com>
- Cc: "gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org" <gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- Date: Sun, 28 Apr 2013 15:10:27 -0400
- Subject: Re: [C++ Patch/RFC] PR 56450
- References: <517AB267 dot 7020900 at oracle dot com> <517B2237 dot 4090401 at redhat dot com> <517C4067 dot 8070207 at oracle dot com>
On 04/27/2013 05:17 PM, Paolo Carlini wrote:
Assuming as obvious that we don't want to crash on it, the interesting
issue is whether we want the static_asserts to both fail or succeed: in
practice, a rather recent ICC I have at hand fails both; a rather recent
clang++ passes both (consistently with the expectation of Bug
submitter). In fact, as I'm reading now 22.214.171.124/4, since we are dealing
with a class member access in any case, it may well be possible that
*ICC* is right.
Yes, I think so. Since it's a class member access, decltype should be
the declared type, i.e. const int.