- Title
- thread_local in explicit specializations
- Status
- cd4
- Section
- 9.2.2 [dcl.stc]
- Submitter
- Mike Herrick
Created on2013-10-02.00:00:00 last changed107 months ago
Messages
Date: 2014-11-15.00:00:00
[Moved to DR at the November, 2014 meeting.]
Date: 2014-02-15.00:00:00
Proposed resolution (February, 2014):
Change 9.2.2 [dcl.stc] paragraph 1 as follows:
...Astorage-class-specifierotherthanthread_local shall not be specified in an explicitspecialization (13.9.4 [temp.expl.spec]) or an explicit instantiation(13.9.3 [temp.explicit]) directive.
Date: 2013-10-02.00:00:00
According to 9.2.2 [dcl.stc] paragraph 1,
...Ifthread_local appears in any declaration of a variable itshall be present in all declarations of thatentity... Astorage-class-specifier shall not be specified in anexplicit specialization (13.9.4 [temp.expl.spec]) or an explicitinstantiation (13.9.3 [temp.explicit]) directive.
These two requirements appear to be in conflict when an explicitinstantiation or explicit specialization names athread_localvariable. For example,
template <class T> struct S { thread_local static int tlm; }; template <> int S<int>::tlm = 0; template <> thread_local int S<float>::tlm = 0;which of the two explicit specializations is correct?
| History | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Date | User | Action | Args |
| 2017-02-06 00:00:00 | admin | set | status: drwp -> cd4 |
| 2015-05-25 00:00:00 | admin | set | status: dr -> drwp |
| 2015-04-13 00:00:00 | admin | set | messages: +msg5355 |
| 2014-11-24 00:00:00 | admin | set | status: ready -> dr |
| 2014-03-03 00:00:00 | admin | set | messages: +msg4818 |
| 2014-03-03 00:00:00 | admin | set | status: open -> ready |
| 2013-10-02 00:00:00 | admin | create | |