This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [C++ RFC / Patch] PR 54080, PR 52875 and more (aka SFINAE vs template recursion depth)
- From: Gabriel Dos Reis <gdr at integrable-solutions dot net>
- To: Jason Merrill <jason at redhat dot com>
- Cc: Paolo Carlini <paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com>, "gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org" <gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- Date: Fri, 9 Aug 2013 03:40:38 -0500
- Subject: Re: [C++ RFC / Patch] PR 54080, PR 52875 and more (aka SFINAE vs template recursion depth)
- References: <5203F75A dot 9080206 at oracle dot com> <52042C5C dot 7060702 at redhat dot com>
On Thu, Aug 8, 2013 at 6:40 PM, Jason Merrill <email@example.com> wrote:
> On 08/08/2013 03:54 PM, Paolo Carlini wrote:
>> the really interesting one is decltype28.C, which we don't reject
>> anymore, we simply accept it. What is happening is that the overload
>> which leads to excessive template instantiation depth is SFINAE-ed away
>> and the other one "wins"! Thus, this is the core of my message: it seems
>> that we behave wrt this issue - SFINAE vs template instantiation depth -
>> in a different way vs current clang++ and icc: we produce hard error
>> messages in SFINAE contexts. Is that intended?
> Yes, that is intended. Changing that could mean that the meaning of code
> depends on what max depth the user selected.
that would be disturbing…