On 19 June 2014 08:11, Jonathan Wakely <jwakely.gcc@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 18 June 2014 21:02, Lukas Jirkovsky <l.jirkovsky@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> On 11 June 2014 22:12, Lukas Jirkovsky <l.jirkovsky@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> Hello, >>> I think hit a regression in gcc 4.9.0 when using a static constexpr >>> member as a template parameter when used in a certain way. However, as >>> the problem is a bit more complex wanted to ask whether this truly is >>> a bug in gcc and not on my side before reporting it to bugtracker. >> >> I think I found the problematic commit: >> >> 18619da58c77461642c36cee9f0463c968877f75 is the first bad commit >> commit 18619da58c77461642c36cee9f0463c968877f75 >> Author: jason <jason@138bc75d-0d04-0410-961f-82ee72b054a4> >> Date: Mon Apr 1 19:05:12 2013 +0000 >> >> * call.c (add_function_candidate): Take the address of 'this' here. >> (build_over_call): And here. >> (build_new_method_call_1, build_op_call_1): Not here. >> (build_user_type_conversion_1): Or here. >> (add_candidates): Adjust. >> >> git-svn-id: svn+ssh://gcc.gnu.org/svn/gcc/trunk@197317 >> 138bc75d-0d04-0410-961f-82ee72b054a4 >> >> :040000 040000 a2f3bbdf5c9b927d05f8aad43efded3ec0840226 >> 948f452d681f4349c70dbad34e010e824c9f91e7 M gcc >> >> I will investigate more and report it as a bug, because it sure looks like one. > > Please do report a bug. Oh sorry, I missed your last mail - thanks for the report.
