Re: [C++ Patch/RFC] PR 56450

[Paolo Carlini <paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com>]

Hi,

On 04/28/2013 09:10 PM, Jason Merrill wrote:
> 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 7.1.6.2/4, 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.
Thanks. Is the below Ok, then? Tested (again) on x86_64-linux.

Thanks,
Paolo.

//////////////////////////

Attachment: CL_56450
Description: Text document

Attachment: patch_56450_2
Description: Text document