I wrote the following program that compiles with EDG but is rejected by gcc, clang and msvc. Demo

C++23/cpp.stringize states:

The bounty expires in 6 days. Answers to this question are eligible for a +400 reputation bounty. Alan wants to reward an existing answer. I wrote the following program in c++23. Here I’ve overloaded member functions. But for all cases different compilers give different result as shown below in comment. As you can see I […]

I wrote the following program that compiles with msvc but rejected by clang and gcc. It uses explicit object member function. Demo.

So, I was toying around with some little code snippet that I’d seen passing by on Reddit, and it made me wonder if the code is actually legal and in accordance with the C++23 standard. Because, as it seems, all of the major compilers (Clang, GCC, and MSVC), have something different to say about it.

This is a follow-up to: What is the new QChar* in C23?, where @Lundin showed me a sample implementation of a function that take
a QChar * with _Generic, after which I implemented strchrnul() like so:

Say I have a macro UNIQUE_NAME(PREFIX) that concatenates __LINE__ to PREFIX. If this macro was to be used in an inline function, included in two different translation units, then the expanded code of the inline function would differ between the two translation units (unless they have the same includes).

If we contrast list initialization of an aggregate and direct initialization of an aggregate, if I don’t specify initializers for all fields, then I suppose the following applies: