Clang/GCC weirdness

Consider the following code:

#include 
#include 
using namespace std;

// base template
template 
struct what_type
{
  void operator()()
  {
    cout << "T" << endl;
  }
};

// specialization 1
template 
struct what_type
{
  void operator()()
  {
    cout << "T[" << N << "]" << endl;
  }
};

// specialization 2
template <>
struct what_type
{
  void operator()()
  {
    cout << "int[0]" << endl;
  }
};

int main(void)
{
  int x[] = {};
  what_type>()();

  return 0;
}

I compile this with GCC (g++ (Ubuntu 4.9.1-16ubuntu6) 4.9.1) and I get:

bdeane@epsilon:~/dev/scratch$ g++ -std=c++1y main.cpp 
bdeane@epsilon:~/dev/scratch$ ./a.out
T

When I use clang (Ubuntu clang version 3.5.0-4ubuntu2 (tags/RELEASE_350/final) (based on LLVM 3.5.0)) I get:

bdeane@epsilon:~/dev/scratch$ clang++ -std=c++1y main.cpp 
bdeane@epsilon:~/dev/scratch$ ./a.out
int[0]

It seems GCC is wrong here: I would expect specialization 2 to be selected. Now, if I remove specialization 2, clang gives the same output as GCC (i.e. T).

If I put an assert in the base template member function, both clang and gcc think that T = int[0] and give almost identical messages:

a.out: main.cpp:53: void what_type<int [0]>::operator()() [T = int [0]]: Assertion `false' failed.

So why isn’t specialization 1 selected? (And it makes no difference either if I have a specialization for T[] as well as/instead of T[N].)

Edit:

Zero-sized arrays are illegal in C++, although GCC and Clang both compile them by default, presumably for historical reasons. If I turn on pedantic, both give me a warning.

From n4296 8.5.1 section 4:

An empty initializer list {} shall not be used as the initializer-clause for an array of unknown bound. (note 105)
105) The syntax provides for empty initializer-lists, but nonetheless C++ does not have zero length arrays.

So if GCC/Clang are going to allow zero-length arrays, I think they should be consistent about it and do specialization “correctly”. A friend reports that Clang/LLVM 3.3 does what GCC does here and uses the base template. Clang/LLVM 3.5 uses specialization 2, which is “more” correct. I have yet to try with Clang/LLVM 3.6+.

Edit 2:

Clang 3.7 produces the same output as clang 3.5.