Consider the following small code fragment:
#include <iostream>
template<class T>
int test();
int main()
{
std::cout << test<int>() << "\n";
}
// POI for test<int>() should be right here
template<class T>
int test()
{
return 0;
}
Live Example that compiles and prints 0 for both Clang and g++.
Here's the draft Standard quote on the point of instantiation of function templates
14.6.4.1 Point of instantiation [temp.point]
1 For a function template specialization, a member function template specialization, or a specialization for a member function or static data member of a class template, if the specialization is implicitly instantiated because it is referenced from within another template specialization and the context from which it is referenced depends on a template parameter, the point of instantiation of the specialization is the point of instantiation of the enclosing specialization. Otherwise, the point of instantiation for such a specialization immediately follows the namespace scope declaration or definition that refers to the specialization.
Vandevoorde and Josuttis have the following to say about this:
In practice, most compilers delay the actual instantiation of noninline function templates to the end of the translation unit. This effectively moves the POIs of the corresponding template specializations to the end of the translation unit. The intention of the C++ language designers was for this to be a valid implementation technique, but the standard does not make this clear.
Question: are Clang/g++ non-conforming because they delay the POI to the end of the translation unit?
#993
to the URL; wg21.cmeerw.net/cwg/issue993 is also possible) – dyp