diff options
| -rw-r--r-- | source/00_content/articles/2014-01-05_disabling_methods_in_implicitly_instantiated_class_template_specializations_in_cpp.md | 2 |
1 files changed, 1 insertions, 1 deletions
diff --git a/source/00_content/articles/2014-01-05_disabling_methods_in_implicitly_instantiated_class_template_specializations_in_cpp.md b/source/00_content/articles/2014-01-05_disabling_methods_in_implicitly_instantiated_class_template_specializations_in_cpp.md index 610254e..3df1aaa 100644 --- a/source/00_content/articles/2014-01-05_disabling_methods_in_implicitly_instantiated_class_template_specializations_in_cpp.md +++ b/source/00_content/articles/2014-01-05_disabling_methods_in_implicitly_instantiated_class_template_specializations_in_cpp.md @@ -71,4 +71,4 @@ because it feels better to me, the usage of `static_assert` makes it possible to __Update 1:__ The second listing currently only compiles in Clang 3.3 from the test set consisting of g++ 4.8.2 and Clang 3.3. While I believe the listing to be valid according to the standard I need to check if it is a bug in one of the compilers or if it is a situation where the standard doesn't clearly define what the compiler should do. I will update this article as soon as I come to a conclusion in this matter. -__Update 2:__ I found a corresponding [issue](http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57314) in the GCC bug tracker. So this problem is actually a case where the C++ standard is not clearly defined and this also explains the difference in behaviour between Clang and g++. In the liked issue there is also a link to the corresponding core language [issue](http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/cwg_active.html#1635). So it seems that I have to either wait for the standard committee to come to a solution or to use listing number three instead of the currently used implementation in my library. +__Update 2:__ I found a corresponding [issue](http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57314) in the GCC bug tracker. So this problem is actually a case where the C++ standard is not clearly defined and this also explains the difference in behaviour between Clang and g++. In the linked issue there is also a link to the corresponding core language [issue](http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/cwg_active.html#1635). So it seems that I have to either wait for the standard committee to come to a solution or to use listing number three instead of the currently used implementation in my library. |