No, that is a compiler bug. gcc 7.1 correctly rejects the code. [expr.prim.lambda]/2: A lambda-expression is a prvalue whose result object is called the closure object. A lambda-expression shall not appear in an unevaluated operand, in a template-argument, in an alias-declaration, in a typedef declaration, or in the declaration of a function or function template … Read more
In addition to Luchian‘s answer, this is the corresponding part from the C++11 standard: The binary / operator yields the quotient, and the binary % operator yields the remainder from the division of the first expression by the second. If the second operand of / or % is zero the behavior is undefined. For integral … Read more
(1) If all the bits in an integer type are zero, does the integer as whole represent zero? Yes, the bit pattern consisting of all zeroes always represents 0: The representations of integral types shall define values by use of a pure binary numeration system.49 [§3.9.1/7] 49 A positional representation for integers that uses the … Read more
It looks like we can find a rationale for this change in defect report 348, which says: Specifically, standard says in 5.3.5 [expr.delete] paragraph 2: …if the value of the operand of delete is the null pointer the operation has no effect. Standard doesn’t specify term “has no effect”. It is not clear from this … Read more
It appears that clang is wrong in this case. The relevant exception I was looking for is in [class.qual]/2: 2 In a lookup in which function names are not ignored and the nested-name-specifier nominates a class C: (2.1) if the name specified after the nested-name-specifier, when looked up in C, is the injected-class-name of C, … Read more
The function of the Normative References section of an ISO standard document is defined in ISO/IEC Directives, Part 2, 2011 §6.2.2: 6.2.2 Normative references This conditional element shall give a list of the referenced documents cited (see 6.6.7.5) in the document in such a way as to make them indispensable for the application of the … Read more
As far as I can tell, this is a clang bug. Copy-list-initialization has a rather unintuitive behaviour: It considers explicit constructors as viable until overload resolution is completely finished, but can then reject the overload result if an explicit constructor is chosen. The wording in a post-N4567 draft, [over.match.list]p1 In copy-list-initialization, if an explicit constructor … Read more
The behaviour of the cast comes down to [expr.static.cast]/13; A prvalue of type “pointer to cv1 void” can be converted to a prvalue of type “pointer to cv2 T”, where T is an object type and cv2 is the same cv-qualification as, or greater cv-qualification than, cv1. If the original pointer value represents the address … Read more
I simply do not understand what “depends on the side effects” means. It means that it depends on something the destructor is doing. In your example, modifying *p or not modifying it. You have that dependency in your code, as the output would differ if the dctor wouldn’t get called. In your current code, the … Read more
I believe the behavior is undefined both in C89/C90 and in C99. foo().f is an expression of array type, specifically char[25]. C99 6.3.2.1p3 says: Except when it is the operand of the sizeof operator or the unary & operator, or is a string literal used to initialize an array, an expression that has type “array … Read more