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: Florian Weimer <fweimer at redhat dot com>
- Cc: Paolo Carlini <paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com>, Jason Merrill <jason at redhat dot com>, "gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org" <gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- Date: Fri, 9 Aug 2013 03:42:14 -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> <6414e1ec-56b5-42f7-821d-69f4e9325a15 at email dot android dot com> <520496A8 dot 1040607 at redhat dot com>
On Fri, Aug 9, 2013 at 2:13 AM, Florian Weimer <email@example.com> wrote:
> On 08/09/2013 08:43 AM, Paolo Carlini wrote:
>>> Yes, that is intended. Changing that could mean that the meaning of
>>> code depends on what max depth the user selected.
>> Indeed. Yesterday I wondered what would happen if the front-end had a way
>> to detect, in some very specific and special cases only of course, really
>> infinite recursions, in the sense that no increase in the depth would "cure"
>> them. Would it be ok in that case to sfinae away?
> Eh, hopefully not. Otherwise, program behavior would depend on how well the
> compiler solves the halting problem.
> It's interesting question, but hopefully we can make all errors due to
> exceeded implementation limits hard errors, not subject to SFINAE.